Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T18:13:07.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IS IT BETTER? EXPLORING THE EFFECT OF TRANSITION GOAL AND VIRTUAL REALITY ON TEAM PERFORMANCE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Nikola Horvat ,
Tomislav Martinec ,
Marko Brnčić  and
Stanko Škec
Nikola Horvat*
Affiliation:
University of Zagreb
Tomislav Martinec
Affiliation:
University of Zagreb
Marko Brnčić
Affiliation:
University of Zagreb
Stanko Škec
Affiliation:
University of Zagreb
*
Horvat, Nikola, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Croatia, nikola.horvat@fsb.hr

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Transition activities, such as design reviews, are often utilised in product development to evaluate the conducted work and plan future actions. While key decisions are made during these activities, they are still underexplored. This paper studies the effect of transition goals and virtual reality (VR) on transition team performance. In an experimental study, four-member teams conducted two transition-related experimental tasks (validation and verification) working in one of the two conditions (VR or desktop interface). The results show that transition goals and VR affect performance. More specifically, the validation-oriented transition was more efficient but less effective than the verification one. Furthermore, the performance of the validation-oriented transition compared to the verification one was increased in VR and decreased in a desktop interface. Finally, the high-performing teams consistently discussed new issues, while low-performing teams had prolonged moments of not discussing anything new. These findings suggest that desktop interface and VR are not substitutable but rather complementary technologies.

Keywords

Virtual realityEvaluationTeamworkTransition processescollaborative CAD
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 2385 - 2394
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Astaneh Asl, B., & Dossick, C. S. (2022). Immersive VR versus BIM for AEC Team Collaboration in Remote 3D Coordination Processes. Buildings 2022, Vol. 12, Page 1548, 12(10), 1548. https://doi.org/10.3390/BUILDINGS12101548Google Scholar
Berg, L. P., & Vance, J. M. (2017). Industry use of virtual reality in product design and manufacturing: a survey. Virtual Reality, 21(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-016-0293-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bush, J. T., LePine, J. A., & Newton, D. W. (2018). Teams in transition: An integrative review and synthesis of research on team task transitions and propositions for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 28(4), 423–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.06.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cash, P., Dekoninck, E., & Ahmed-Kristensen, S. (2020). Work with the beat: How dynamic patterns in team processes affect shared understanding. Design Studies, 69, 100943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2020.04.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cash, P., Hicks, B., & Culley, S. (2013). A comparison of designer activity using core design situations in the laboratory and practice. Design Studies, 34(5), 575–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2013.03.002Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1960). A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Astous, P., Détienne, F., Visser, W., & Robillard, P. N. (2004). Changing our view on design evaluation meetings methodology: a study of software technical review meetings. Design Studies, 25(6), 625–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2003.12.002Google Scholar
de Casenave, L., & Lugo, J. E. (2017). Design Review Using Virtual Reality Enabled CAD. Volume 1: 37th Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, V001T02A067. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2017-67878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deininger, M., Daly, S. R., Lee, J. C., Seifert, C. M., & Sienko, K. H. (2019). Prototyping for context: exploring stakeholder feedback based on prototype type, stakeholder group and question type. Research in Engineering Design, 30(4), 453–471. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00163-019-00317-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dong, A., Kleinsmann, M., & Valkenburg, R. (2009). Affect-in-cognition through the language of appraisals. Design Studies, 30(2), 138–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.DESTUD.2008.12.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eftekharifar, S., Thaler, A., & Troje, N. F. (2020). Contribution of Motion Parallax and Stereopsis to the Sense of Presence in Virtual Reality. Journal of Perceptual Imaging, 3(2), 20502-1–20502-20510. https://doi.org/10.2352/J.Percept.Imaging.2020.3.2.020502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horvat, N., Brnčić, M., Perišić, M. M., Martinec, T., Bojčetić, N., & Škec, S. (2022). Design Reviews in Immersive and Non-Immersive Collaborative Virtual Environments: Comparing Verbal Communication Structures. Proceedings of the Design Society, 2, 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2022.23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horvat, N., Kunnen, S., Štorga, M., Nagarajah, A., & Škec, S. (2022). Immersive virtual reality applications for design reviews: Systematic literature review and classification scheme for functionalities. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 54, 101760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2022.101760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horvat, N., Martinec, T., Lukačević, F., Perišić, M. M., & Škec, S. (2022). The potential of immersive virtual reality for representations in design education. Virtual Reality. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-022-00630-wCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horvat, N., Martinec, T., Perišić, M. M., & Škec, S. (2022). Comparing design review outcomes in immersive and non-immersive collaborative virtual environments. Procedia CIRP, 109, 173–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2022.05.232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huet, G., Culley, S. J., McMahon, C. A., & Fortin, C. (2007). Making sense of engineering design review activities. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 21(3), 243–266. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060407000261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lauff, C. A., Knight, D., Kotys-Schwartz, D., & Rentschler, M. E. (2020). The role of prototypes in communication between stakeholders. Design Studies, 66, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.11.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Y., Castronovo, F., Messner, J., & Leicht, R. (2020). Evaluating the Impact of Virtual Reality on Design Review Meetings. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 34(1), 04019045. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Y., Messner, J. I., & Leicht, R. M. (2018). A process model for usability and maintainability design reviews. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 14(6), 457–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2018.1512042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lukačević, F., Škec, S., Perišić, M. M., Horvat, N., & Štorga, M. (2020). Spatial Perception of 3D CAD Model Dimensions and Affordances in Virtual Environments. IEEE Access, 8, 174587–174604. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3025634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Donnell, F. J., & Duffy, A. H. B. (2002). Modelling design development performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(11), 1198–1221. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570210450301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Bernarda, G., & Smith, A. (2014). Value proposition design: how to create products and services customers want. Wiley.Google Scholar
Rigutti, S., Stragà, M., Jez, M., Baldassi, G., Carnaghi, A., Miceu, P., & Fantoni, C. (2018). Don't worry, be active: how to facilitate the detection of errors in immersive virtual environments. PeerJ, 6, e5844. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5844CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Satter, K., & Butler, A. (2015). Competitive Usability Analysis of Immersive Virtual Environments in Engineering Design Review. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering, 15(3), 031001. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4029750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sopher, H., Milovanovic, J., & Gero, J. (2022). Exploring the effect of immersive VR on student-tutor communication in architecture design crits. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference of the Association for Computer- Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia (CAADRIA) 2022, 315–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tea, S., Panuwatwanich, K., Ruthankoon, R., & Kaewmoracharoen, M. (2022). Multiuser immersive virtual reality application for real-time remote collaboration to enhance design review process in the social distancing era. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 20(1), 281–298. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-12-2020-0500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfartsberger, J. (2019). Analyzing the potential of Virtual Reality for engineering design review. Automation in Construction, 104(March), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.03.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wynn, D. C., & Maier, A. M. (2022). Feedback systems in the design and development process. Research in Engineering Design, 33(3), 273–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00163-022-00386-ZCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, S., & Daly, S. R. (2016). Feedback in concept development: Comparing design disciplines. Design Studies, 45, 137–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2015.12.008Google Scholar