See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228797332

Relational Modes Between Industrial Design and Engineering Design—A

Conceptual Model for Interdisciplinary Design Work

Article · January 2003

CITATIONS READS
9 101

2 authors, including:

Anders Warell
Lund University
48 PUBLICATIONS 257 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PRACTICES OF JEWELLERY DESIGNERS View project

Design for Desirability View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anders Warell on 11 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Relational Modes between Industrial Design and Engineering
Design – a Conceptual Model for Interdisciplinary Design Work

Sara PERSSON*, Anders WARELL**

*Chalmers University of Technology, Department of Product and Production Development, Industrial

Design Engineering, 412 96 Göteborg, SWEDEN, sara.persson@me.chalmers.se
** Chalmers University of Technology, Department of Product and Production Development, Industrial
412 96 Göteborg, SWEDEN, anders.warell@me.chalmers.se

Abstract: Focus on customer and market needs has initialized changes in product development work, which involve
integration of industrial design and engineering design functions. Interdisciplinary teams are considered a prerequisite
in order to achieve collaboration, and a necessity to meet market demands in new products. However, interdisciplinary
teams are inherently associated with collaborative shortcomings. In this work, relations between industrial designers
and engineering designers in product development work are studied. Project members have difficulties working
together unambiguously due to the fact that each functional member has his or her focus and experience of design work.
This results in an inefficient process, characterized by limited understanding and respect of each others competencies
and viewpoints. Based on empirical findings and communication theory, this paper describes the different relational
modes between industrial designers and engineering designers and the significance each such level constitute. This
paper suggests a first step to improve collaboration by identifying characteristics of different modes of relations. The
interactive modes represent one-way communication, reciprocal communication, interaction and collaboration. In order
to achieve collaboration a number of prerequisites need to be fulfilled: firstly, information has to be externalized in a
language that is understood by both sender and receiver. A further step, reciprocal communication is needed to ensure
that the content of the message has been understood. Interaction implies a common understanding of how individuals’
activities relate to one another. Finally, collaboration has been achieved when integrated work result in a common
understanding of the situation and the design work mutually entail both parties’ perspectives. This situation should be
the aim of any fully interactive work environment.
Key words: industrial design, engineering design, communication, interaction, collaboration, integrated product
development

1. Introduction
Dissimilar perspectives on product development work, due to factors such as lack of knowledge and diverse
cultural backgrounds, result in poor integration of the industrial design profession in industry [1-3]. In order to
efficiently utilize the industrial design competence in industrial organizations, functional integration has been
introduced, which has the purpose of establishing industrial design as a function among others in an organization.
However, this kind of functional division has often resulted in fragmented organizations characterized by poor
communication and coordination in product development work. Consequently a common solution is to integrate
several functions in multidisciplinary teams. Integration of industrial design and engineering design has the purpose
of uniting the two functions and to incorporate them into a more homogenous unit. Because product development
work affects the activities in several departments, the direction of the work would diverge into each department's
own goals, and fragmentation of tasks would reduce the efficiency, unless disciplines work in an integrated manner.
In engineering design methodology, research concepts such as “integrated product development” [4-5] and
“concurrent engineering” are frequently used to prescribe interdisciplinary industrial teamwork. However,
experience shows that members of such teams have difficulties working together unambiguously due to the fact that
each member has separate functional responsibilities, his or her own view and experience of design work [1]. Thus,
it is here argued that integration with more far-reaching implications than merely functionally is needed.
Research in integrated product development has focused on engineering design and manufacturing [6-7];
marketing and engineering design [8]; and architectural and engineering [9-10]. No studies on the industrial design
and engineering design relation have been identified.
This paper investigates the integration between engineering designers and industrial designers in the product
development process and particularly what the integration on different modes implies in practice. It is suggested that
the relations in integrated product development work are described in different modes, dictated by the degree of
contact between disciplin es. The parameters characterizing the relational modes will be discussed.
1.1 Communication in product development work
Communication plays a central role for the effectiveness of interplay between individuals as well as for their
existence as a group [11]. According to Wiio [12], communication is the only means by which we can influence each
other. The purpose of communication in product development organizations is to transfer knowledge between
individuals and to adapt different product perspectives into one design proposal. “Communication implies mutual
influence by means of the process by which one adaptive (adaptable) system affects another adaptive system” [13].
However, it is argued that mere communication is not sufficient for efficiently merging the industrial design and
engineering design competencies. Contact between industrial designers and engineering designers rather has
numerous modes. In this paper, the modes are described as levels of one-way communication, reciprocal
communication, interaction and collaboration. In other words, to realize successful incorporation of both functions,
collaboration has to be achieved. The objective of this paper is to describe what the concept of relational modes
implies for industrial design and engineering design integration in terms of degrees of communication on a team
level. Creating a “group feeling” enhances interaction by the sharing of common objectives, values, goals, etc. Thus,
the aim of interaction should be to create a “group sense”, involving the necessary competencies. Increased
understanding and common goals boasts this interaction.
Previous empirical studies on interactive design work between industrial designers and engineering designers [3]
have been based on Porras and Robertson’s [14] model on factors influencing the organizational behavior. The
model provided an overview of factors, which involve and influence design project members behavior. However, in
order to understand the activities in the interface between the professionals, communic ation theory is used in this
paper.

2. Method
The methodology of the research is divided into two main approaches; empirical studies and literature reviews.
The literature review involved study of communication theory and related work on interdisciplinary product
development in the design management area and engineering design methodology. The empirical studies utilized
ethnographical research methodology, including observing participation [15] and qualitative, semi-structured
research interviews [16] in an industrial environment.
Issues studied included individual and disciplinary project responsibilities, product development process and
methodology, documentation and interaction media, differences between industrial designers and engineering
designers regarding the process and approach to the work, and opinions on influencing factors on industrial
design-engineering design interaction. Details on the approach and the overall findings can be found in [3].
In the following, issues concerning communicative aspects in the empirical findings have been extracted,
analyzed and defined using communication theory.

3. Aspects influencing communication

This work focuses on interpersonal communication in design work, i.e., once the idea or concept is presented it
can be perceived, interpreted and discussed by other subjects [17]. The concept can be presented verbally, by talking
or writing; symbolically, by product data, drafting standards, letters and numbers, etc; and through product
representations, by graphical or three-dimensional models. These different codes are means by which we
communicate in different languages.
In the communication process, ideas are transformed into messages by the sender. The message is perceived and
interpreted by the receiver, who ideally gets the idea as intended by the sender. However, in order to achieve
common understanding, the message has to cover more or less the same notion for both individuals. Communication
fails partly due to diverse mental pictures of the message. For communication between engineering designers and
industrial designers, it is important to realize that the actual ideas, e.g., design solutions, are not what is conveyed,
but signs or messages representing these ideas, which are interpreted depending on the influence of disturbance.
Hence, in the communication situation, the received message is not necessarily the same as the intended or sent
message. Disturbance is always introduced into the message but not included in the intention of the sender [17]. The
disturbances in the communication situation is divided into three types [11]:
· physical disturbance (i.e., noise on the street, distortion on the telephone line);
· semantic disturbance (ambiguousness, vagueness, language differences) and
· psychological disturbance (attitudes, consequences of prejudgments, suspicious, psychological defenses
by sender or receiver).
The disturbances discussed in this paper are semantic and psychological.

4. Conditions for enabling communication

A number of factors serving as conditions for enabling communication have been reviewed. These factors are
not considered in the different modes of contact but are a prerequisite for the contact between individuals in a
product development setting. Empirical findings have shown that the prerequisites for any kind of communication
in an organization are sometimes not attained, or that the communication channels are ambiguously maintained, e.g.,
the communication is infrequent. Svengren [1] and Lawson [9] state that industrial designers often find themselves
involved in the late stages of the product development process and therefore communication is prevented in the
early stages. The product development process, in the studied company, involved both competencies in the early
stages, which allow communication. However, the competencies were organizationally and physically separated.
This resulted in a situation where designers tended to report to the management of their own department or through
studio engineers, instead of communicating directly across functions [3]. This results in additional instances, and
accordingly added potential disturbance. A typical communication problem in design collaboration is to reach the
“right” persons for expertise knowledge or idea sharing; when design information has to pass throughout the
hierarchy of an organization [18].
 Physically separated professional groups influence the efficiency of communication [8,3]. Distributed
departments keep channels closed for spontaneous meetings for, e.g., problem clarification in daily work. A high
frequency of communication is important in order to maintain a relationship once it has been established. A known
fact is that the probability of communication decreases to less than 10% between individuals whose offices are
located 10 meters and more from each other [5,8]. Co-location of cross-functional groups provides the opportunity
for communication; however, it does not in itself generate communication. Transmission between two persons is
relatively non-complicated, particularly face-to-face, but the transmission among multiple persons or between two
groups requires coordination and management of information flows. When more persons are involved, the
communications become more complicated [18]. In the following, it is presumed that communication in an
interdisciplinary team does take place.

5. Relational modes in product development work

The conceptual model in Fig.1 shows the suggested categorization of implications in the relation between
industrial designers and engineering designers. The model describes the stepwise achievements towards
collaborative design work. Based on empirical findings and communication theory, the model distinguishes
between four modes of interdisciplinary contact and the degree to which the contact exist. The modes constitute
one-way communication, reciprocal communication, interaction and collaboration. In order to achieve collaboration
a number of prerequisites need to be fulfilled: First, data has to be externalized in a language that is understood by
both sender and receiver. Furthermore, reciprocal communication is needed to ensure that the content of the
message has been understood. Interaction implies a common understanding of how individuals’ activities relate to
one another. Finally, collaboration has been achieved when integrated work results in a common understanding of
the situation creating a mutual benefit to both parties. The model does not treat the frequency of communication but
rather the mode of communication. In this section, the relational implications between industrial designers and
engineering designers will be discussed.

Common
understanding of:

New knowledge Mode 4.

Goal
developed Collaboration

Mode 3.
Knowledge applied Context
Interaction
Mode 2.
Feedback Perspectives Reciprocal
communication
Mode 1.
Message transfer Content One-way
communication

Fig.1. Distinctions made between four modes of interdisciplinary relations.

5.1 One -way communication mode

One-way communication is a prerequisite for enabling contact with other people, i.e., we have to be able to
externalize and transfer data. However, data is not necessarily interpreted meaningfully by the receiver [19].
One-way communication is typical for mass-communication and top-down communic ation in large organizations
[20]. The setback of one-way communication is that the sender cannot be sure that the message has been “correctly”
interpreted or that it has the intended effect on the receiver. In order to understand consequences caused by one
another, the industrial designer and engineering designer have to use a commonly shared language in order to
achieve any kind of communication. Two kinds of understanding of the transferred message are here distinguished:
1) understanding of the communicative codes, the language which serves as means for communication, e.g.,
vocabulary, symbols and product reproductions; and 2) understanding of the content of the message, e.g., aspects of
the problem to solve. In this mode, the message as such is understood but to understand the underlying reasons for
the message and to put it in a context requires a common view of the problem, which cannot be achieved solely by
one-way communication.
Studies show that engineering designers do not understand the “fuzzy” vocabulary used by industrial designers.
Equally, industrial designers found it difficult to understand, e.g., the product specification and how it influences
industrial design solutions [3]. As a result, words do not have the same meaning for all members of the project team.
This semantic disturbance derives from different knowledge and cultural backgrounds. Thus, a common language is
necessary to achieve efficient communication. Otherwise, the semantic part of communication is lost.
5.2 Reciprocal communication mode
The previous mode was to externalize messages using a common language in order to comprehend different
aspects of the problem task. In the next mode, reciprocal communication, the sender receives feedback on whether
the information is understood or not. In this stage it is possible to place data into a meaningful context [20] and
verify the meaning of the transferred information. The verification or feedback enables us to understand how
different perspectives relate to one another. This requires a commonly established language and has the purpose to
establish a common understanding of the problem task [21]. A project member sends a message based on his or her
mental picture of the problem task, as verification on the message the receiver explains the problem from his or her
viewpoint. This is a first step towards a common mental picture of the group members’ own view in relation to
others’ view.
It is important to understand how others’ aspects influence on the fulfilment of the own aspects and vice versa.
However, product representations often represent one single competence’s aspects, rather than consequences for
both industrial design and engineering design aspects. Studies carried out in this work confirm that the use of
product representation differs between industrial designers and engineering designers. During meetings between
disciplines, engineering designers tend to use verbal models, e.g., for strength analysis and costs, as well as
two-dimensional technical drawings. Industrial designers create three-dimensional renderings in surface modelling
software or hand sketches and present representative pictures to explain a theme, metaphor, idea, etc. The models
represent either the technical functions or the interactive functions 1 , but there is no representation where both
perspectives are viewed simultaneously [3]. This causes difficulty in recognizing how the aesthetical solutions work
in relation to the technical solution of the product. As noted by Hill et al. [22] a shared understanding of design is
necessary for the successful completion of a design project. Hill et al. suggest that shared design understanding
often is manifested through the use of similar jargon in documentation because vocabulary differences can create
communication problems.
5.3 Interaction mode
The interaction mode in the model (Fig.1) adds a new dimension to communication. Interaction involves
processes where groups and individuals, through their actions, mutually influence each other. In comparison with
the previous communication modes, the implication of interaction is that the work and actions are affected by other
team members’ actions and messages. In the work presented here, interaction implies that engineering designers
cannot be neglected by industrial designers and vice versa, but that the members have to react upon each others
actions. This type of communication, thus involves applying knowledge, which is created when we come to believe
and value on the basis of meaningfully organized gathering of information (messages) through experience,
communication, or inference [20]. At this stage we can identify a commencing teamwork.
Ruekert et al. [23] and Woodward [24] have defined the differences between interaction and collaboration (the
next mode in the model) in an organization, concluding that interaction represents the structural nature of
cross-departmental activities. Such activities address formally coordinated activities between departments,
including routine meetings, planned teleconferencing, routine conference calls, memoranda, and the flow of
standard documentation. The activities are structured in nature because they regulate communication through
frequency of occurrence, adherence to routine schedules, and upper management mandate. Overall, the interaction
is structural because it adds structure to how departments interrelate [25].
According to Mohammed and Dumville [26] cognitive consensus is achieved through interaction and discussion.
Group members are confronted with the conflicting views of their colleagues and thus have to merge dissimilar
assumptions underlying the views. Cognitive consensus refers to similarity among group members regarding how
key issues are defined and conceptualized.
Disharmony in integrated product development appears when industrial designers and engineering designers
approach the design problem in different ways. Engineering designers typically concentrate on solving
sub-problems, while industrial designers solve problems holistically [27]. Engineering designers tend to use
solutions that are known to them, whereas the industrial designers strive to find innovative or unusual solutions [27].
Muller [28] highlights some distinct differences between the disciplines’ expertise. Unlike the strategy of
engineering designers, industrial designers prefer to keep concepts open-ended as long as possible in order to find
several alternative solutions. These different strategies, in combination with different views of the design problem,
create conflicts when establishing a common time plan and common deadlines. The disturbance in the interaction
appears when individuals do not have a common level of problem abstraction in the merging of a product.
The mutual correspondence of functions, e.g., interactive and technical functions and how different types of
functions work together is not revealed until the product is put into production or in late stages of the project. In
representing the products communication is undertaken; however the differences in the type of information carried
by different representations means that interaction between the different viewpoints is prevented. Semantic
disturbance prevents individuals to understand how their work affect co-workers and vice versa and how different
solutions influence each other.
5.4 Collaboration mode
The final and most desirable mode of relation to achieve is collaboration. Collaboration is a condition of
working jointly with others or together, especially in an intellectual endeavor [30]. Thus, collaboration implies
cooperation and association with others for mutual benefit. Furthermore, it is claimed that in order to achieve
collaboration, communication and interaction modes must be established.
In comparison with interaction, Kahn [25] describes collaboration as the unstructured, affective nature of
interdepartmental relationships. Collaboration is defined as an affective, volitional mutual and shared process,

1
Interactive functions relate to human-product interaction functions [29].
where two or more departments work together, sharing mutual understanding, a common vision, and recourses, and
achieve collective goals [31,32]. Such activities are intangible, not easily regulated, difficult to sustain without joint
efforts, and represent a stronger interrelationship compared to the interaction mode. Jassawalla and Sashittal [33]
have developed the concept of collaboration further to include high levels of: a) At-stakeness, i.e., conditions where
participants have equitable interest in implementing jointly developed agendas, and feel equal stake in new product
development related to outcomes. b) Transparency, i.e., a condition of high awareness achieved as a result of intense
communication and exchange of hard-data that makes the motivation, agendas, and constrains of all participants
explicit. c) Mindfulness, i.e., a condition where new product decisions and participants’ actions reflect an integrated
understanding of the width, and the often divergent motivations, agendas, and constraints that exist, at all times. d)
Synergy, i.e., the accomplishment as a result of cross-functional linkages of new product development outcomes that
reflect capabilities significantly beyond those that participants individually bring to the process.
Furthermore, collaboration contributes with new knowledge development; as a result the design does not have to
be a compromise between industrial design aspects and engineering design aspects but a notion of higher order. In
comparison with interaction, collaboration would favor those activities that build up an esprit de corps (i.e. a
common spirit existing in the members of a group; inspiring enthusiasm, devotion; and strong regard for the honor
of the group) across departments and top management interventions that unite department goals [25]. It is suggested
that a “team mental model”, i.e., the team members’ shared, organized understanding and mental representation of
knowledge about key elements of the team’s relevant environment [34], has been achieved at this stage.
The individuals involved in a product development project have different cultural backgrounds, which have
formed, and continuously form, their attitudes towards and opinions about work tasks and other project members.
Attitudes across disciplines influence the project members’ respective values and ultimately affect the collaboration
positively or negatively. Preconceived notions, lack of trust and openness prevent successful collaboration [3]. Due
to a largely innovative and individual approach common among industrial designers, reservation and preservation
(referred to as psychological disturbance) occurs in the interdisciplinary development of, and discussions about,
conceptual ideas.
With different educational and cultural backgrounds, their knowledge spheres have different focus. Industrial
designers focus on social and cultural utility values and use limited scientific knowledge of the perceptual effect of
the product. Engineering design professionals focus on product material utility value based on scientifically founded
knowledge and use scientific methods for testing and solving technical problems [28].
On the other hand, ways to explain underlying reasons for form design solutions are not trivial. Unlike
engineering designers who base their solutions on scientific laws and calculated costs, industrial designers use their
own subjective knowledge, personal views and values to define and value their solutions. From a communicative
viewpoint, it is thus not possible to determine, with the same level of accuracy as in engineering, how an individual
will perceive a certain form [29]. This results in unrecognized and unclear motivations of form design solutions.

6. Conclusions
According to Jassawalla and Sachittal [33], successful product development has to be performed collaboratively.
The model of relational modes presented in this paper compile the content of such communicative activities,
providing an overview of four different modes of communication, namely, one-way communication, reciprocal
communication, interaction and collaboration, on a team level. The model dissects the problems associated with
each mode and provides recognitions of communicative impair on several levels:
? One-way communication is achieved through externalization of data, which has to be interpreted by the
receiver. This requires a common language, which both competencies understand. Here, reproductions of
products, e.g., mock-ups and prototypes, serve as a “universal” language, as industrial designers and
engineering designers can visualize and explain solutions from their point of view.
? Reciprocal communication involves mutual understanding of the competencies’ different aspects. It is
necessary to understand the language used, the content of messages, and most important, the underlying
purpose of a particular solution and its consequences towards other stakeholders in the project.
? In interaction, the knowledge gained from the communication is applied, i.e., the mutual understanding is
apparent in the activities performed in the design work. Methods supporting such activities and enables
project members to gain a holistic overview of industrial design and engineering design perspectives has
been developed by Warell [29].
? Collaboration takes communicative activities yet a step further as new knowledge is applied, and a common
understanding of the design situations is created. From the project members’ point of view, this stage
requires a bit of self-reflection as well as acceptance of differences between competencies. The willingness
to share knowledge and learn from others is the decisive key to any kind of collaboration.
In order to move to a higher relational mode, factors such as increased work experience, knowledge and
awareness among project members is required. Furthermore, the movement can also be enhanced by using the
right tool and methods that support collaborative design work.
Acknowledgment
This work was financially supported by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research through the ENDREA
research program. This support is gratefully acknowledged.

References
1. Svengren, L. Industriell design som strategisk resurs - en studie av designprocessens metoder och synsätt
som del i företagets strategiska utveckling. Ph.D. thesis, The institute of Economic Research, Lund
University Press, Lund, (1995)
2. Mannervik, U. Den socialt formgivna produkten – spelet mellan olika perspektiv i produktutvecklingen.
Arktitekturhistoria och bebyggelsevård, Göteborg, (1997)
3. Persson, S. Industrial Design and Engineering Design Interaction: Studies of Influencing Factors in
Swedish Product Developing Industry. Licentiate Thesis, Department of Product and Production
Development, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, (2002)
4. Olsson, F. Principkonstruktion. Institutionen för Maskinkonstruktion, Lunds Tekniska Högskola, Lund
(1995)
5. Andreasen, M. M., Hein, L. Integrated Product Development. Institute for Product Development, Technical
University of Denmark, Copenhagen, (2000)
6. Beskow, C. Product Development in Change – Cross-functional Co-operation and PDM Implementations.
Licentiate Thesis, Department of Machine Design, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, (1997)
7. Ulrich, K. T., Eppinger, S. D. Product Design and Development. The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc, (2000)
8. Griffin, A., Hauser, J. R. Integrating R&D and Marketing: A Review and Analysis of Literature. Journal of
 Product Innovation Management, 13, 191-215(1996)
9. Lawson, B. How Designers Think – the Design Process Demystified. Architectural Press, Oxford, (1997)
10. Grange, K. Från byggnadsyrke till making profession? Om mötet mellan arkitekter och ingenjörer.
Arkitekturens teori och historia, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, (2002)
11. Nilsson, B. and Waldemarson, A. -K. Kommunikation - samspel mellan människor. Studentlitteratur, Lund,
(1990)
12. Wiio, O., A. Kommunikation – vad är det? Bokförlaget Natur och Kultur, Stockholm, (1973)
13. Shannon, C, Weaver, W. The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, Illinois
(1949)
14. Porras, J. I., Robertson, P. J. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Consulting
Psychologists Press Inc, Paolo Alto, CA, (1992)
15. Blessing, L. Research Methodology, Key Issues, working notes, (2000)
16. Kvale, S. Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun. Studentlitteratur, Lund, (1997)
17. Fiske, J. Kommunikationsteorier: en introduktion. Wahlström och Widstrand, Centraltryckeriet, Borås
(1998)
18. Chiu, M-L, An organizational view of design communication in design collaboration. Design Studies, 23,
187-210(2002)
19. Zack, M. H. Managing Codified Knowledge. Sloan Management Review, summer (1999)
20. Bakka, J. F., Fivelsdal, E., Lindkvist, L. Organisationsteori: struktur, kultur, process. Liber-Hermods,
Malmö, (1993)
21. Gunnarsson, O., S. Kommunicera är nödvändigt för att vinna kunskap, föra ut budskap, påverka och
förändra. Statens institut för personalutveckling, Nordstedts, (1990)
22. Hill, A., Song, S., Dong, A., Agogino, A. Identifying Shared Understanding in Design Using Document
Analysis. Proceedings of DETC’01, Pittsburgh, PA, (2001)
23. Ruekert, R. W., Orville, C. W. Jr. Marketings interaction with other functional units: A conceptual
framework and empirical evidence. Journal of Marketing, 51, 1-19(1987) (Reference via Kahn, 1996)
24. Woodward, J. Industrial Organisation: Theory and Practice. Oxford University Press, London, (1965)
(Reference via Kahn, 1996)
25. Kahn, K. B. Interdepartmental Integration: A definition with Implications for Product Development
Performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13, 137-151(1996)
26. Mohammed, S., Dumville, B. C. Team Mental Models in a Team Knowledge Framework: Expanding
Theory and Measurement across Disciplinary Boundaries. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22,
89-106(2001)
27. Purcell, T., Gero. J- S. Design and other types of fixation. Design Studies, 17, 363-383(1996)
28. Muller, W. Order and Meaning in Design. Lemma Publishers, Utrecht, (2001)
29. Warell, A. Design syntactics: A functional approach to visual product form, PhD Thesis, Department of
Product and Production Development, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, (2001)
30. Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. http://m-w.com.cgi-bin/dictionary
31. Apple, D. G., Winder, A. E. An evolving definition of collaboration and some implications for the world of
work”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 13(3), 279-291(1977) (reference via Kahn, 1996)
 32. Shrage, M. Shared Minds: The New Technologies of Collaboration. Random House, New York, (1990)
(Reference via Kahn, 1996)
33. Jassawalla, A. R., Sashittal, H. C. An Examination of Collaboration in High-Technology New Product
Development Processes. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15, 237-254(1998)
34. Klimoski, R., Mohammed, S. Team Mental Model: Construct or Metaphor? Journal of Management, 20(2),
403-437(1994)

View publication stats