Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Assessment of collaborative decision-making in design development and coordination meetings Golparvar Fard, Mani 2006

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2006-0470.pdf [ 36.86MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0063255.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0063255-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0063255-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0063255-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0063255-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0063255-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0063255-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0063255-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0063255.ris

Full Text

ASSESSMENT OF COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING IN DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND COORDINATION MEETINGS by  MANI GOLPARVAR FARD B.Sc. (Civil Eng.), Iran Univ. of Science & Technology, 2002 M.Sc. (Civil Eng. - Hydraulic Structures), Iran Univ. of Science & Technology, 2005  THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR T H E DEGREE OF  MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE in  THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  (Civil Engineering)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A U G U S T 2006  © Mani Golparvar Fard, 2006  ABSTRACT Building design is a complex multi-disciplinary process that requires extensive collaboration to develop a coordinated design that satisfies the functional, aesthetic, and economic requirements of the owner.  Today, design meetings typically take place in  physical workspaces, such as conference rooms, where all the relevant members of the team work together in the same place and time. Although most project information is generated electronically, teams primarily communicate and share information using paper-based representations. Emerging technologies such as touch-sensitive large-screen displays, table-top displays, laptops, and tablet PCs offer great promise in enriching today's paper-based workspaces to create what are known as interactive workspaces. 3D design tools are also gaining acceptance and providing significant benefits to the design coordination process. However, it remains unclear as to how such tools and technologies can be incorporated effectively in workspaces to support design coordination meetings. This research addresses this need by characterizing how people spend time performing collaborative decision-making tasks in design development meetings.  I  conducted a five-month field study of the design development process for the Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS) project being constructed near downtown Vancouver, British Columbia.  I observed weekly design development meetings and  performed a thorough post-meeting video analysis. During the meetings, I took detailed notes documenting the meeting activities, the kind of information sources and representations used, and the interactions meeting participants had with information. The video was analyzed to identify how time is spent on different decision-making tasks and to determine the effectiveness of those tasks. This research found that the majority of time in design development meetings is spent on descriptive (35%) and explanative (42%) tasks and very little time is spent on evaluative (12%) and predictive (11%) tasks. However, resolution rates- percentage of tasks resolved- were still quite high in these meetings, with an average of 73%. Based on  ii  the analysis, paper-based meetings were compared and an initial set of requirements for accomplishing design development tasks in a computer-supported interactive workspace were identified. In summary, successful interactive workspaces should support physical as well as digital artefacts, digital records of meetings, and digital overlays of schematic diagrams.  in  TABLE OF CONTENTS  Abstract  ii  Table of Contents  iv  List of Tables  vii  List of Figures  viii  Acknowledgements  xi  Co-Authorship Statement  xii  Chapter 1: Thesis Overview 1.1 1.2 1.2.1. 1.2.2. 1.3 1.4 1.4.1. 1.4.2. 1.4.3. 1.4.4. 1.4.5. 1.5 1.6  1  Introduction Literature review Interactive workspaces Collaborative decision-making assessment Research objectives Research methodology Literature review Mini-experiments in U B C interactive workspace Naturalistic observations of CIRS design development meetings Coding of current paper-based workspaces Post-coding analysis The manuscript overview References  Chapter 2: Requirements for a mobile Interactive Workspace to support design Development and coordination 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6  Introduction Background on interactive workspaces Study of paper-based workspaces Study of interactive workspaces Conclusions and future works References  Chapter 3: Assessment of Decision-Making in Paper-based Design Development and Coordination Meetings 3.1. 3.2. 3.2.1. 3.2.2.  Introduction , Related research background Background on interactive workspaces Background on evaluating A E C decision-making process  iv  1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 10 10 11 11 12 16 16 18 19 24 27 28 30 30 32 32 35  3.3. 3.4. 3.5. 3.6. 3.6.1. 3.6.2. 3.6.3. 3.6.4. 3.7. 3.7.1. 3.7.2. 3.7.3. 3.7.4. 3.8. 3.9. 3.10.  Research objectives Case study: The CIRS project Research methodology Decision-making assessment framework Types of tasks Form/type of information sources and representations Coding scheme Post-coding analysis Analysis of the Meetings: Design development meetings Value engineering meetings Scheduling meetings Overview of all design development and coordination meetings Initial requirements of interactive workspace Conclusions and future work References :  Chapter 4: Conclusions and Future Works 4.1 4.2 4.3  Summary Contributions Recommendations on future research  36 37 39 40 41 41 42 45 48 48 57 65 71 76 81 82 86 86 87 88  Thesis Bibliography  89  Appendix I: Post-meeting notes - CIRS meeting April 05th  93  Appendix II: Post-coding analysis results- CIRS design development and coordination meetings  131  Appendix III: Components of MIW  140  V  LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1: First category of tasks by type  ,  41  Table 3.2: Information representation forms and types  42  Table 3.3: List of Subjects of the study  43  Table 3.4: A n example of detailed coding on a predictive task  52  Table 3.5: Information sources and representation details on Feb 22nd design development meeting observed  56  Table 3.6: Information representation/documentation details on first value engineering Session observed  64  Table 3.7: A n example of detailed coding on a predictive task in a scheduling meeting  66  Table 3.8 Information representation and sources in different meetings observed  76  vi  LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Snap shots of different workspaces: From the left (a) current paperbased workspace, (b) U B C interactive workspace, and (c) MobileInteractive-Workspace (MIW) mobilized to the main coordination meeting room at architectural firm  8  Figure 1.2: Research methodology over CIRS project and MIW  9  Figure 2.1: Snapshots of Workspaces: a) Paper-based Workspace, b) Current Interactive Workspace (source: ENR.com), and c) State-of-the-art Interactive Workspace  17  Figure 2.2: 3D rendering of the Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability Project (source: Busby Perkins + Will)  20  Figure 2.3: Construction manager working with scheduling milestones (left), and participants turning laptops around to share information with the group (right)  23  Figure 2.4: Hard conflict between conduit and ductwork identified in Autodesk Building Systems (left) and Navisworks Clash Detective (right)  26  Figure 3.1: Snapshots of different workspaces: From the left (a) current paperbased workspace, (b) U B C interactive workspace prototype, and (c) Mobile-Interactive-Workspace (MIW) mobilized to the main design coordination meeting room at CIRS architectural firm  37  Figure 3.2: 3D Renderings of the Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS) Project (Source: Busby Perkins + Will, on CIRS Project directory on Buzzsaw)  38  Figure 3.3: Three different types of meeting observed. From the left: (a) design development meeting, (b)  39  Figure 3.4: Information representations utilized in CIRS: From the left (a) plans and views of architectural design development set, (b) Design development schedule created on a whiteboard, and (c) design details, architectural design development set and design schedule in a design development meeting observed  39  Figure 3.5: Snapshot of the coding scheme: a) subjects, b) behaviours and c) modifiers  44  Figure 3.6: Snapshots of meeting analysis interface based on the CIRS analysis coding scheme  45  Figure 3.7: An example of a post-coding analysis results sheet (April 05th, 2006 CIRS value engineering meeting )  47  Vll  Figure 3.8:  Average time distribution among different tasks in design development meetings, line: Percentage of tasks effective  49  Figure 3.9: Distribution of task and task resolution within Feb 15th design development meeting (rear trend-line, Task Types: Descriptive, Explanative, Evaluative and Predictive, fore trend-line, task resolutions: Full height= Complete, Zero height= Incomplete, Halfheight= Needs confirmations)  50  Figure 3.10: Snapshots of design development, From Left: (a) Mechanical Engineer is showing details of chilled beam system to A E C teams; (b) Owner representative is discussing design with the building architect and (c) Main inter-institutional partner on research is explaining the rational of vision wall as building exterior to the building architects pointing to detailed design architectural plan  51  Figure 3.11: Design development meetings post-coding analysis average results sheet  53  Figure 3.12: A screenshot of the Autodesk Buzzsaw document sharing system; Participants used Buzzsaw as a central repository for documents, sketches, and meeting minutes  54  Figure 3.13 Total representations, total info types and average info/task ratio in three design development meetings observed  55  Figure 3.14: Average time distribution among different tasks in value engineering meetings, line: Percentage of tasks effective  57  Figure 3.15: Distribution of task and task resolution within Apr 19th value engineering meeting (rear trend-line, Task Types: Descriptive, Explanative, Evaluative and Predictive, fore trend-line, task resolutions: Full height= Complete, Zero height= Incomplete, Halfheight= Needs confirmations)  59  Figure 3.15: Snapshots of value engineering sessions, From Left: (a) Building architect is explaining service zones; (b) Structural Engineer is evaluating the suggested structural systems and (c) Mechanical contractor asks a question on mechanical system, he is pointing to the 3D model, on the other side of the meeting, electrical engineer is browsing the architectural design hung on the wall  60  Figure 3.17: Value engineering meeting post-coding analysis average results sheet  62  Figure 3.18 Total representations, total info types and average info/task ratio in three value-engineering meetings observed ,  :.63  Figure 3.19: Average time distribution among different tasks in value engineering meetings, line: Percentage of tasks effective  65  Figure 3.20: Distribution of task and task resolution within Apr 19th value engineering meeting (rear trend-line, Task Types: Descriptive, Explanative, Evaluative and Predictive, fore trend-line, task resolutions: Full height= Complete, Zero height= Incomplete, Halfheight Needs confirmations)  67  Vlll  Figure 3.21: Snapshots of two scheduling meetings, From Left: (a) Construction Manager is putting the milestones previously created on the schedule sheet at project management firm's boardroom workspace; (b) The second updated design development schedule created by the construction manager at on small boardroom at the architect's office; and (c) owner representatives, consultants and contractors attending the scheduling meeting; a copy of current schedule is distributed among all  68  Figure 3.22: Scheduling meeting post-coding analysis average results sheet  69  Figure 3.23 Total representations, total info types and average info/task ratio in two scheduling meetings observed  70  Figure 3.24: Snapshots of two scheduling meetings; From Left: (a) Construction Manager is putting the milestones previously created on the schedule sheet at project management firm's boardroom workspace; (b) The second updated design development schedule created by the construction manager at on small boardroom at the architect's office; and (c) owner representatives, consultants and contractors attending the scheduling meeting; a copy of current schedule is distributed among all  71  Figure 3.25: The typology of time spent of decision-making tasks on CIRS design development, scheduling and value engineering meetings  72  Figure 3.26 Effectiveness of decision-making tasks on CIRS design development, scheduling and value engineering meetings  72  Figure 3.27: The meeting resolution metrics (meeting productivity, resolution rates and resolution productivity) within CIRS design development, scheduling and value engineering sessions  75  IX  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first like to express my gratitude to Dr. Sheryl Staub-French for her supervision and invaluable advice.  I am sincerely grateful for your mentoring, supervision and  insight regarding this research and all of the encouragement and support through this year. Of course, any improvement in my future career is a direct result of your tremendous help and support.  Sincere thanks to Dr. Melanie Tory from Computer  Science Dept. at University of Victoria and Dr. Barry Po from Computing, Information and Cognitive Systems research centre at U B C for their great help and collaboration on human-computer interactions and information visualization domains. Special thanks to Kathleen Liston from Stanford University for her collaboration with the assessment framework, travelling to U B C and all the assistance through the analysis. I am very grateful to Dr. Alan Russell and Dr. Thomas Froese for stimulating discussions with my research and courses in UBC. You all opened my eyes to many novel issues in research. Secondly, this research would not have been possible without generous research opportunity we received from industry. I would like to thank the entire A E C project teams involved in Centre of Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS) project, Busby Perkins+ Will architects especially Harley Grusko, Marco Bonaventura and Martin Nielson; Graeme Silvera from U B C Properties Trust, Gord Sookaveiff, Arthur Atkinson and Ron Mcfee from Stuart Olson Construction Management. Thirdly, I wish to thank all the people at U B C and Vancouver, and back in Iran who indirectly related to this research for their support and camaraderie. In particular, I would like to thank Sam Zahed, my cousin, Behnam Faraji, my friend and Dr. Abbas Yeganeh-Bakhtiary, my MSc supervisor in hydro-structures for their friendship and support throughout this period of my life as 1 was experiencing many new things. Finally, I am most grateful to Bita and my family for their everlasting encouragement and support, particularly throughout my time away from home at U B C .  CO-AUTHORSHIP STATEMENT  The thesis author was responsible for substantial contributions to the content and writing of the two co-authored manuscripts presented i n Chapter 2 and 3. H e played a lead role in writing these manuscripts and the rest o f the thesis including the literature review on interactive workspaces and the collaborative decision-making framework; collecting data while attending all C I R S design development and coordination meetings, the video coding process, and critical interpretation o f the post-coding results. The co-authors participated i n the development and drafting o f ideas and were equal partners with the thesis author i n the review and revision o f the manuscripts.  Date (yyyy/mm/dd) Signature o f Research Supervisor Signature o f Thesis Author  ZOQG/0%1II  xi  CHAPTER 1: THESIS OVERVIEW 1.1 Introduction Design development and coordination of construction projects requires collaboration of many different specialists from numerous disciplines, each contributing a particular body of knowledge to the overall effort.  The decision-making process involves and affects  many project participants including architects, engineering consultants, construction managers, facility maintenance organizations, facility users and property managers. During design and construction, these architectural-engineering-construction (AEC) teams meet regularly to coordinate their perspectives to ensure that the design meets the functional, aesthetic and economic requirements of the owner. Today, design meetings typically take place in physical workspaces, such as conference rooms, where all the relevant members of the team work together in the same place and time.  Although most project information is generated electronically, teams  primarily communicate and share information using paper-based representations. Emerging technologies (e.g., touch-sensitive large-screen displays, table-top displays, laptops, and tablet PC's) offer great promise in enriching today's paper-based workspaces to create what are known as interactive workspaces. Interactive workspaces are physical locations where people work, share, and use information together through electronic means.  Research has shown that interactive workspaces improve the utility of project  information and the quality of the decision-making process (e.g., Liston et al. 2000a& 2001 and Fox et al. 2000). Recently, 3D computer-aided design (CAD) tools are gaining acceptance and providing significant benefits to the design coordination process (e.g., Staub-French and Fischer 2001, Khanzode et al. 2005, Kam et al. 2003). Using 3D design tools, design teams are able to integrate information electronically and identify potential design conflicts semi-automatically. Although the use of 3D C A D tools is well established, it  1  remains unclear as to how such tools can be incorporated effectively into fully digital interactive workspaces where multiple groups of people work together to accomplish design development and coordination. There is a rapidly growing need to understand current work practices for the purpose of developing better tools to facilitate the interaction with digital information and documentation best suiting decision-making tasks. This research addresses this need by characterizing how people spend time performing collaborative decision-making tasks in design development meetings.  I  conducted a five-month field study of the design development process for the Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS) project being constructed near downtown Vancouver, British Columbia.  1 observed weekly design development meetings and  performed a thorough post-meeting video analysis. During the meetings, I took detailed notes documenting the meeting activities, the kind of information sources and representations used, and the interactions meeting participants had with information. The video was analyzed to identify how time is spent on different decision-making tasks and to determine the effectiveness of those tasks. This research found that the majority of time in design development meetings is spent on descriptive (35%) and explanative (42%) tasks and very little time is spent on evaluative (12%) and predictive (11%) tasks.  However, the resolution rates was still  quite high in these meetings, with an average of 73%. Based on the meeting analysis, I identified an initial set of requirements for accomplishing design development tasks in a computer-supported  interactive  workspace.  In  summary,  successful  interactive  workspaces should support physical as well as digital artefacts, digital records of meetings, and digital overlays of schematic diagrams. This chapter describes the literature review, the research objectives, and the research methodology. It concludes with a summary of the manuscript.  1.2 Literature review For this research, I have reviewed the literature in the following areas: 1) Interactive workspaces, and 2) Collaborative decision-making assessment.  2  1.2.1.  Interactive workspaces  There are many cases in the literature where prototype tools and digital infrastructures have been used to support various group workspaces. These research efforts mainly fall into two domains: a) Architecture-Engineering-Construction domain and b) General collaborative workspaces domain. a) Architecture-Engineering-Construction  domain  The iRoom infrastructure originally developed by Johanson, Fox, and Winograd (2002) has been extended and applied to design and construction meetings, perhaps most notably for the Centre for Integrated Facilities Engineering (CIFE) at Stanford (2000a&b, 2002 and 2005). In particular, the work of Liston et al. (2000) at CIFE showcases how digital tools might be used to augment 4D construction planning activities in an interactive workspace. Their study identifies the requirements of interactive workspace to support construction  decision-making  tasks  by  supporting  visualization  and  interactive  techniques. They observed current paper-based construction workspaces do not allow information interaction, views don't visually represent critical relationships and are not appropriate for group use and human and information resources are inefficiently utilized in decision making. This research concludes interactive workspaces help construction teams to perform decision-making tasks better. Their research provides a useful point of departure to study the requirements of interactive workspaces in design development and construction coordination process. The Luminous planning table of Underkoffler and Ishii (1999) attempted to integrate multiple forms of physical and digital media for the purpose of supporting the process of urban design. The infrastructure where the application is based allows physical architectural models placed on a table surface to cast shadows accurate for arbitrary times of day; to throw reflections off glass facade surfaces; to affect a real-time and visually coincident simulation of pedestrian-level wind flow; and so on. The Divercity project (Christiansson et al., 2002) proposed to develop a "shared virtual  construction workspace" by combining product modeling technologies with  simulation environments to allow construction companies conduct client briefing, design reviews, simulate what-if scenarios, perform constructability analysis and communicate  3  and co-ordinate design activities between teams and evaluates the results on real-life projects. Their focus was on providing 3D-real time inspection features for detailed design software applications and resolves the discontinuity between these applications to allow results of one phase in design process to be used as an input for another phase. Messner et al. (2005) is another example where they have used visualization techniques to improve construction-engineering education. They proposed using virtual reality technologies and large-screen displays allows people to study real-life spaces at full-scale  adding  more  realism  to  their  virtual experience.  They  identified that  implementing 3D/4D C A D and the use of virtual reality allows people visualize the issues more clearly; facilitates analysis and obtain real-time feedback to the group. Interactive Intelligent Workplaces at University of South Australia has focused on individual  workspaces.  There  are  working  on  integration,  communication,  and  coordination within workspaces but also a service that supports procedural and cognitive aspects of team interactions, and simulation within learning environments which can adapt and evolve to meet individual and enterprise needs. In Interactive Workspace Laboratorium of University of Aarhus a part of Danish Centre for Pervasive Computing, researchers are developing pervasive  computing  technologies to support more natural user collaboration in a rich variety of application imploding them into small devices and appliances on one hand, and on the other exploding them onto large-scale walls, buildings and furniture. The goal of their experiments is to support projects with spatial computing components that go beyond existing augmented reality and collaborative virtual environments in terms of their ability to bring information objects (documents, C A D models, etc.) out of the computer and into the collaborative physical spaces as tangible objects. These components would then integrate in more natural ways with physical materials in people's work environments than does the traditional document in a scrolling window on a monitor. The work by Rankin et al. (2006a) has also focused on the use of an Information Collaboration Laboratory aimed at optimising the present technological package to meet the needs of participants and improve technological functions. Their results present early applications of I C L in aspects of information management and decision-making. Hence,  4  there is a need to assess the usability of digital media in A E G collaborative decisionmaking.  b) General collaborative workspaces domain Understanding group work inside collaborative workspaces is already the focus of much study, particularly in the areas of human-computer interaction (HCI) and computersupported cooperative work ( C S C W ) .  Olson and Olson (1997) and D i x et al. (2004)  provide general reviews of the work in these areas. Meeting support systems such as the T i v o l i electronic whiteboard (1993), the i L A N D roomware system (Streitz et al., 1998), and the Dynamo multi-user surface (Izadi et al., 2003) contain digital elements that might be desirable for computer-supported design development. In particular, the i-Land project undertaken by the Ambiente Group at G M D - I P S I in Darmstadt, Germany is somewhat similar to Stanford's Interactive Workspaces project in that it focuses more on human interaction aspects. The project has developed a range of Roomware components, including the Interac Table, CommChairs, and a large screen interactive display called DynaWall. Their work focuses on the development of custom applications rather than integrating "off the s h e l f applications as is the case for the Interactive Workspaces project. Furthermore, the work of Sellen and Harper (2002) on the use and management of paper in various workplaces is revealing when viewed in the context of how paper is used during design development. A case study has been performed to examine a company eager to reduce paper in their work process by not adopting an all-or-nothing approach. It was found out that reduction of paper serves to facilitate the work process and employee attitudes but still the company needs paper for specific documents like contracts. M I T ' s Intelligent Room project in an example where MetaGlue is used which is an  agent-based  architecture  to provide computational  glue for large  groups of  collaborative software agents and device controllers. A primary focus of their project is in the area of context awareness to allow environments to be aware of, and respond automatically to users' needs (designated a. type of intelligence). The work also focuses on natural modes of human-computer interactions including the use of speech and gestures.  5  A t U I U C , researchers are using an infrastructure in a project named Active Spaces to manage computational resources within a physical space. The approach is based on the use of a meta-operating system for ubiquitous computing rooms called GaiaOS. The Active Spaces work takes more of an enterprise computing perspective than the other projects discussed in that the focus is on extending the concepts of traditional operating systems to support heterogeneous distributed ubiquitous spaces, where a space could range from a single mobile user through to collaborative environments such as conference. 1.2.2. There  Collaborative decision-making assessment is on-going research  to  study  group  decision-making and  sources  and  representations of information utilized in the meetings. Based on a framework defined on "Cognitive F i t " between information representations and tasks developed by Vessey (1991), researchers in GIS (Smelcer and Carmel, 1994), business graphics (Dennis and Carte, 1998) were able to assess the impact of digital representations" (Liston et al., 2001). Their research  helps  to assess the  change  form  paper-based  to  digital  representation of information. The work by McGrath (1984) is another example, which provides a complete framework for understanding the kinds of tasks that take place in collaborative settings, most of which are relevant to interactive workspaces for building design and coordination. North and Schneiderman (1999) is another example where the value of coordinated visualization in exploring complex information has been studied at the task level. The overview and detail-view coordination has been studied to see i f they improve user performance depending on different types of tasks. In the A E C domain, Liston et al. (2000b & 2001), Fischer et al. (2005) and Rankin et al. (2006) are trying to map characteristics of information representations to decision-making tasks and evaluate information action on those tasks. These research efforts are a point of departure for studying the requirements of an interactive workspace to support design development and construction coordination. Many of these research efforts, evaluate information use at the task level and are designed  to compare the decision making process between  users  of traditional  environments, and those of interactive environments, and hence identify the value added  6  to the decision making process for users of interactive workspaces. This research is similar to these research efforts. For the purpose of fitting the assessment framework initially created by Liston K . , Fischer M . and Kunz, J. at Stanford University to the environment of our study, I have modified and extended the framework to generate a coding scheme which fits the C I R S naturalistic observational study. This part of research has been a collaboration of our research team in U B C with Kathleen Liston of Stanford University. Our goal in the long-term research is to apply the same framework to interactive workspace to evaluate the changes in performance of decision-making tasks in different workspaces.  1.3  Research objectives  This research  aims to better understand  the nature of design development  and  coordination meetings and the ways in which digital collaborative technology might be used to support the work practices of those engaged in design development activities. To accomplish this goal, I conducted a detailed analysis on the collaborative decisionmaking process in C I R S design development and coordination meetings. The specific research objectives are as follows: (a) To explore how A E C teams spend time in performing collaborative decisionmaking tasks in paper-based design development and coordination meetings. (b) To study the characteristics of current information sources and representations utilized in paper-based workspaces. (c) To assess the effectiveness and resolution on different decision-making tasks performed in A E C design development and coordination meetings. (d) To identify major features of different collaborative design development meetings observed, (i.e. design development, value engineering and scheduling meetings). (e) To develop an initial set of requirements for interactive workspaces based on observations of paper-based workspaces. Fulfilment of these objectives will provide an understanding of current paperbased meetings in terms of how people spend time in design development and coordination meetings, the effectiveness of the process and the types of information  7  representations used to facilitate the process. It also identifies initial requirements for digital technologies in interactive workspaces. Conducting the same analysis on digitally supported interactive workspaces in the rest of design  development  and  coordination meetings  as  well  as  construction  coordination meetings w i l l help to study all the meetings in a construction project. It also allows identifying the features of electronically supported workspaces and its effect on decision-making tasks. The complete set of analysis would allow us to classify a full set of requirements for interactive workspaces and types of digital technologies required to support these tasks. Figure 1.1 shows snapshots of the different workspaces.  Figure 1.1: Snap shots of different workspaces: From the left (a) current paper-based workspace, (b) UBC interactive workspace, and (c) Mobile-Interactive-Workspace (MIW) mobilized to the main coordination meeting room at architectural firm  1.4 Research methodology Figure 1.2 shows our long-term research methodology over C I R S projects and the mobile interactive workspace. In this research study, the paper-based meetings have been the focus. Here, I explain the methodology adopted to achieve the objectives set above.  s  Schematic Design and Detailed Design  Working Drawings  C o n s t r u c t i o n of C I R S Preliminary study  . P r o t o t y p i n g in !  Testing visualization anc  Interactive  *|  documentation techniques o n  I Workspace  mock-up meetings  rve Current Practice Naturalistic observation a n c c o d i n g of C I R S P a p e r - b a s e d meetings  A n a l y z i n g t h e r e s u l t s of t h e P 6 s i - C o d i n g At  c o d i n g t o i d e n t i f y t h e initial r e q u i r e m e n t of M I W  Naturalistic observation and c o d i n g of C I R S Meetings in M I W  1  I  A n a l y z i n g the results, identifying m e t h o d s to i n c r e a s e e f f i c i e n c y ir i i i i n  Enhancing M l W with l e s s o n s  process  E n h a n c i n g M l W w i t h digital artefacts  Figure 1.2: Research methodology over CIRS project and MIW  1.4.1.  Literature review  An extensive literature review related to interactive workspace applications classified into A E C and other collaborative workspaces domain has been performed. Based on this review, the research  efforts  related to applying of state-of-art technologies  to  collaborative works were analyzed and a point of departure was determined for the research work. Another literature review related to the assessment of group decisionmaking processes was also conducted to identify the body of knowledge which I could use and build upon to perform the assessment in the case study. In addition, the literature review helped me to identify how to further refine the assessment framework and how my research could contribute to this body of knowledge. This formed a solid background for performing the coding process on the case study. I also reviewed the literature of classification group activities assessment frameworks and coding schemes in computer science, particularly in human-computer interactions domain, which helped to establish the basis for my data analysis and classification.  9  1.4.2.  Mini-experiments in U B C interactive workspace  I conducted experiments  in our state-of-the-art  interactive workspace to simulate  activities observed in 3D design coordination meetings. These experiments investigated the extent to which 3D design coordination could be supported by  state-of-the-art  collaboration technologies.  1.4.3.  Naturalistic observations of CIRS design development meetings  I conducted a five-month field study of the design development and coordination workspaces for the Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS) project being constructed near downtown Vancouver, British Columbia.  To gather a relevant body of  data, a naturalistic observation of regular design development meetings (both in situ and video analysis) was performed. Over the five-month period, I observed weekly meetings of the A E C teams.  Each meeting was roughly three hours in length.  While these  meetings took place, I took detailed notes about meeting activities, what kind of information sources and representations were used and I recorded the interactions that meeting participants had with information. Complete video recordings with audio were collected throughout these meetings, permitting a more thorough post-meeting video analysis to take place. High-resolution still photos were also taken at regular intervals during the meetings. For collaboration purposes on C I R S project, A E C teams use Autodesk Buzzsaw document-sharing  system,  where  participants  archived and  shared  their  meeting  documents in digital form before and after meetings. I had access to Buzzsaw to track what information sources and representations are shared in and after the meetings. These documents included meeting agendas, meeting minutes, 2 D and 3 D C A D drawings and models, schedules, geotechnical reports, cost information and sketches.  1.4.4.  Coding of current paper-based workspaces  Based on the observations made by research observers at these meetings and the assessment framework adopted in this study, a comprehensive video coding scheme was developed with the intent of capturing performance metrics on decision-making tasks.  10  The video are coded -8 videos, or approximately twenty-four hours of video in total- by breaking down discussions to the task levels. For each of the tasks observed, a set of performance metrics, including the time spent, the type of information used and the resolution of the task are captured. I have selected mostly the later meetings for coding because design had made more significant progress (e.g., early meeting were more introductory and mostly did not involve critical decision-making tasks). Copies of many of the documents used by meeting participants were collected and reviewed to analysis the information sources and representations in these meetings. They provided a useful secondary source of data in terms of providing context for many of the specific discussions and activities that occurred in particular meetings.  1.4.5.  Post-coding analysis  Based on the coding results, I performed a post-coding analysis to evaluate and measure the performance  metrics on decision-making tasks. This analysis allowed me to  quantitatively capture time spent on different tasks, the resolution rates, effectiveness of the tasks and information representation utilized. For each of the meetings, all the metrics are captured and a summery best representing design development and coordination meeting is provided for each meeting type observed.  On the basis of the results and  observations, a set of key observations and requirements for an interactive workspace is provided for each decision-making meeting type.  1.5  The manuscript overview  This thesis consists of an introduction chapter, a conclusion chapter to outline the study conducted. Chapter 2 and 3 present research papers that focus on specific contributions. Three appendices are also attached at the end, which demonstrate a detailed analysis performed in one of the meetings, post-coding results in all the meetings observed and the interactive workspace infrastructure. A version of chapter 2 is published in the proceedings of the Joint International conference on Computing and Decision-Making in C i v i l and Building Engineering, ICCCBEXI,  Montreal, Q C Jun.2006. In this paper,  ll  initial  interactive workspace  requirements identified in our preliminary observations are presented. The authorship of this chapter is Mani Golparvar Fard, Sheryl Staub-French, Barry Po and Melanie Tory. Chapter 3 will also be published in a journal in the civil engineering domain. The authorship of this chapter would be Mani Golparvar Fard, Sheryl Staub-French, Barry Po and Melanie Tory. Chapter 4 is a conclusion chapter, which summarizes the research conducted; the contributions made and describe future work. Appendix I contains all the detailed analysis of one of the meetings (a value engineering meeting) observed, including the detailed coding, the analysis performed on the post-coding process and the list of observations made in that specific meeting and information sources and representations utilized. Appendix II contains all the results sheets of eight design-development and coordination meetings and appendix III contains the features of interactive workspaces and exclusively the mobile interactive workspace we intend to use during the rest of the meetings on the CIRS project. 1.6  References  Active Spaces Project, http://gaia.cs.uiuc.edu, visited on Dec 2005 Ambiente Project, German's National Research Center for Information Technology (GMD)'s i-Land, http://www.darmstadt.gmd.de/ambiente/i-land.html. Autodesk Buzzsaw. http://www.autodesk.com/buzzsaw/. Christiansson, P., Da Dalto, L., Skjaerbaek, J. O., Soubra, S., and Marache, M . (2002). "Virtual environments for the AEC sector: The Divercity experience". Proc. of the European Conference of Product and Process Modeling, eWork, and eBusiness in AEC, Portoroz, Slovenia, pp. 49-55. Dennis, A. R. and T. A. Carte (1998). "Using Geographical Information Systems for Decision Making: Extending Cognitive Fit Theory to Map-Based Presentations" Information Systems Research, Vol.9, No.2, pp. 194-203. Easy living, vision Group at Microsoft, http://research.microsoft.com/easyliving/, last visited on Dec 2005. E-world laboratory, University of South Australia, http://e-world.unisa.edu.au/, last visited on Dec 2005. Fischer, M., Liston, K. and Kunz, J. (2000a). "Requirements and Benefits of Interactive Workspaces in Construction", Proc. of 8th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Stanford University, CA  12  Fischer, M . , Liston, K., and Kunz, J. (2000b). "Requirements and benefits of interactive workspaces in construction". Proc. of the 8th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Stanford University, CA. Fischer, M . , Stone, M . , Liston, K., Kunz, J., and Singhal, V. (2002). "Multi-stakeholder collaboration: The CIFE iRoom". Proc. of the CIB W78 Conference, Distributing Knowledge in Building, Aarhus, Denmark. Fox A., Johanson B., Hanrahan P. and Winograd T. (2000). "Integrating information appliances into an Interactive Workspace", IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 20(3), pp. 54-65. Golparvar Fard, M . , Staub-French, S., Po, B. A., and Tory, M . (2006). "Requirements for a Mobile Interactive Workspace to Support Design Development and Coordination". In Proceedings of the Joint International Conference on Computing and Decision Making in Civil and Building Engineering (ICCCBEXI 2006), pp. 3587-359.6. Interactive Workspace Laboratorium, University of Aarhus and Danish Center for Pervasive Computing, http://www.daimi.au.dk/ispace/, last visit Dec 2005. Issa, M . H . , Rankin, J.H., and Christian, A.J. (2006) "A Framework to Assess the Collaborative Decision Making Process in Interactive Workspaces", In Proceedings of the Joint International Conference on Computing and Decision Making in Civil and Building Engineering (ICCCBEXI 2006), pp. 2720-2729. Izadi, S., Brignull, H., Rodden, T., Rogers, Y., and Underwood, M . (2003) "Dynamo: A public interactive surface supporting the cooperative sharing and exchange of media". Proc. of the A C M Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, A C M Press, New York, N Y , pp. 159-168. Jarvenpaa, S. L . and G. W. Dickson.(1988). "Graphics and managerial decision making: research-based guidelines." Communications of the A C M . A C M Press, New York, NY. Vol. 31, No. 6. Johanson, B. and Fox, A. (2004). "Extending tuplespaces for coordination in interactive workspaces", Journal of Systems and Software, Vol.69, No. 3, pp.243-266. Johanson, B., Fox, A., and Winograd, T. (2002). "The interactive workspaces project: Experiences with ubiquitous computing rooms". In IEEE Pervasive Computing Magazine Vol. 1, No.2, pp. 71-78. Kam, C , Fischer, M . , Hanninen, R., Karjalainen, A., and Laitinen, J. (2003) "The product model and fourth dimension product". ITcon Vol. 8, Special Issue IFC - Product models for the A E C arena, pp. 137-166, http://www.itcon.org/2003/12 Khanzode, A., Fischer, M . , and Reed, D. (2005). "Case study of the implementation of the Lean Project Delivery System (LPDS) using virtual building technologies on a large health care project". Proc. of IBLC-13, Sydney, Australia, pp.143-150. Kunz, J., Fischer, M . , Liston, K., Singhal, V . , and Stone, M . (2002) "Virtual design and construction in the CIFE iRoom". Proc. of the 3rd Int Conference on DecisionMaking in Urban and Civil Engineering, London, England.  13  Liston, K., Fischer, M . and Kunz, J. (2000). "Designing and Evaluating Visualization Techniques for Construction Planning", The 8th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Stanford University, C A , USA Liston, K., Fischer, M . and Winograd, T. (2001). "Focused Sharing of Information for Multidisciplinary Decision Making by Project Teams", ITcon Vol. 6, pp. 69-82, http://www.itcon.Org/2001/6 Liston, K. (2001). Thesis proposal, Unpublished manuscript, 2001. Messner, J., Riley, D. and Horman, M . (2005). "An Interactive Visualization Environment for Construction Engineering Education", Proc. of Construction Research Congress, San Diego, C A . MIT Intelligent Room Project, http://aire.csail.mit.edu/ , visited on Dec 2005 McGrath, J. E. (1984). "Typology of tasks". In Groups: Interaction and Performance. Prentice-Hall, pp. 60-66. Newell, A. and H. A. Simon (1972). "Human Problem Solving". Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall. Norbert A. Streitz, Jorg GeiBler, Torsten Holmer, Shinichi Konomi, Christian MiillerTomfelde,Wolfgang Reischl, Petra Rexroth, Peter Seitz and Ralf Steinmetz (1999), i-LAND: An interactive Landscape for Creativity and Innovation, Proceedings of the A C M Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'99), Pittsburgh, PA, U.S.A., pp. 120-127 North, C. and B. Schneiderman (1999). "Snap-Together Visualization: Evaluating Coordination Usage and Construction", University of Maryland Computer Science Dept. Olson, G. M . and Olson, J. S. (1997). "Research on computer supported cooperative work", In Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, 2 Ed, Elsevier Science, pp. 1433-1456. nd  Pedersen, E. R., McCall, K., Moran, T. P., and Halasz, F. G. (1993) "Tivoli: An electronic whiteboard for informal workgroup meetings". Proc. of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '93), A C M Press, New York, NY, pp. 391-398. Preece, J., et al. (1996). "Human-Computer Interaction". Harlow, England, AddisonWesley. Rankin J., Issa M . and Christian, A.J. (2006). "Exploring the Principles of Interactive Collaborative Workspaces", 1st International Construction Specialty Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, May 23-26, 2006, CT-092, pp. 1-10. Sawyer, T. (2005). "3-D Imaging, Maturing Visualization Tools Make Ideas Look Real", e-construction, Mc-Graw Hill Construction Publications, http://enr.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0271 -18890_ITM  14  Schreyer M . , Hartmann T., and Fischer M . (2005). "Supporting Project Meetings with Concurrent Inter-operability in a Construction Information Workspace", ITcon Vol. 10, pg. 153-167, http://www.itcon.org/2005/12 Sebrechts, M . M . , et al. (1999). "Visualization of Search Results: A Comparative Evaluation of Text, 2D, and 3D Interfaces". 22nd annual intl A C M SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, Berkeley, C A USA,ACM. Sellen, A. J., and Harper, R. H . R. (2002). "The Myth of the Paperless Office". MIT Press, Cambridge, M A , 2002. Smelcer, J. B. and E . Carmel (1994). "Do Geographic Information Systems Improve Decision Making". Washington, D.C., Kogod College of Business Administration, The American University. Staub-French, S. and Fischer, M . (2001). "Industrial case study of electronic design, cost, and schedule integration", Technical Report No. 122, CIFE, Stanford University. Stevens, G. and Wulf, V . (2002). "A new dimension in access control: Studying maintenance engineering across organizational boundaries". Proc. of the A C M Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW 2002), A C M Press, New York, NY, pp. 196-205. Streitz, N., Geissler, J., and Holmer, T. (1998). "Roomware for cooperative buildings: Integrated design of architectural spaces and information spaces". Proc. of CoBuild '98, pp. 4-21. Suwa, M . and Tversky, B. (1996). "What architects see in their sketches: Implications for design tools". In Companion Proc. of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '96), A C M Press, New York, NY, pp.191-192. Underkoffler, J. and Ishii, I. (1999). "Urp: A Luminous-tangible workbench for urban planning and design". Proc. of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '99), A C M Press, New York, NY, pp.386-393. Vernik, R., Blackburn, T. and Bright, D., (2003). "Extending Interactive Intelligent Workspace Architectures with Enterprise Services". Proc. of Evolve2003, Enterprise Information Integration, Sydney, Australia. Vessey, I. (1991). "Cignitive Fit: Theory-Based Analyses of Graphs Versus Tables Literature." Decision Sciences, Vol. 22, No.l, pp.219-241. Wang, X. and Dunston P. (2005). "Heavy Equipment Operator Training via Virtual Modeling Technologies", Proc. of Construction Research Congress, San Diego, CA. Wildemuth B. et al. (2002) "Alternative Surrogates for Video Objects in a Digital Library: Users' Perspectives on Their Relative Usability", Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol.2458, pp. 493 - 507.  15  CHAPTER 2: REQUIREMENTS FOR A MOBILE INTERACTIVE WORKSPACE TO SUPPORT DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND COORDINATION 1  2.1  Introduction  Building design is a complex process that requires the coordination of multi-disciplinary and multi-organizational teams working under intense schedule constraints. The building design process is iterative in nature and involves the exploration and analysis of a variety of alternatives until a satisfactory solution emerges. A building is considered successful when the different discipline-specific designs are integrated into a harmonious whole in a way that satisfies the functional, aesthetic, and economic requirements of the owner. During the course of design, the different disciplines meet regularly to review the design of the various systems, and ensure that the team is making continuous progress towards a coordinated and conflict-free solution. Today, design meetings typically take place in physical workspaces, such as conference rooms, where all the relevant members of the team work together in the same place and time. Although most project information is generated electronically, teams primarily communicate and share information using paper-based representations (Figure 2.1a). Emerging technologies (e.g., touch-sensitive large-screen displays, tabletop displays, laptops, and tablet P C ' s ) offer great promise in enriching today's paper-based  workspaces to create what are known as interactive  workspaces (Figures 2.1b and c). Interactive workspaces are physical locations where people work, share, and use information together through electronic means. Research has shown that interactive workspaces improve the utility of project information and the quality of the decision-making process (e.g., Liston et al. 2000, Fox et al. 2000).In this paper, we first provide a brief overview of relevant literature. W e then describe how we ' A version of this chapter is published in proceedings of Joint International Conference on Computing and Decision-Making in Civil and Building Engineering (ICCCBE XI), Montreal, QC, 14-16 June 2006, pp. 3587-3596. The authorship is: as: Golparvar Fard, M., Staub-French, S., Civil & Environmental Engineering Department, University of British Columbia.; Po, B. and Tory, M , Computer Science Department, University of British Columbia.  16  developed and coordinated the 3D models of the M E P systems in the case study. Finally, we discuss the framework we developed to classify the M E P design and coordination knowledge collected from the case study.  c) State-of-the-art Interactive Workspace Figure  2.1: Snapshots of Workspaces: a) Paper-based Workspace, b) Current Interactive Workspace (source: ENR.com), and c) State-of-the-art Interactive Workspace.  Recently, 3 D computer-aided design ( C A D ) tools are gaining acceptance and providing significant benefits to the design coordination process (e.g., Staub-French and Fischer 2001, Khanzode et al. 2005, K a m et al. 2003).  Using 3 D design tools, design  teams are able to integrate information electronically and identify potential design conflicts semi-automatically. Although the use of 3D C A D tools is well established, it remains unclear as to how such tools can be incorporated effectively into fully digital interactive workspaces where multiple groups of people work together to accomplish design development and coordination.  There is a rapidly growing need to better  understand these groups and their work practices for the purpose of developing better tools for collaborative interaction and visualization.  17  This paper describes an initial set of requirements for accomplishing design development and coordination tasks in a computer-supported interactive workspace. We developed these requirements through: (1) observations of design development meetings in paper-based workspaces (Figure la), (2) observations of 3D design coordination meetings in current interactive workspaces (Figure lb), and (3) experiments conducted in a state-of-the-art interactive workspace in our visualization laboratory (Figure 1c). These requirements form the basis for a new Mobile Interactive Workspace (MIW) we are configuring for use during design development and construction coordination at project sites.  2.2 Background on interactive workspaces Understanding group work inside interactive workspaces is already the focus of much study, particularly in the areas of human-computer interaction (HCI) and computersupported cooperative work (CSCW).  Olson and Olson (1997) and Dix et al. (2004)  provide general reviews of the work in these areas. Classic work by McGrath (1984) provides a complete framework for understanding the kinds of tasks that take place in collaborative settings, most of which are relevant to interactive workspaces for building design  and coordination.  Many  research  examples  of  interactive  workspace  infrastructures designed to support group collaboration also exist, including the ClearBoard  system by Ishii and Kobayashi (1992), the Tivoli system by Pedersen et al.  (1993), the GAZE system by Vertegaal (1999), the iWork system by Johanson, Fox, and Winograd (2002) in Stanford's Centre for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE)'s iRoom, and the Dynamo  system by Izadi et al. (2003). These systems collectively  demonstrate there are tangible benefits to incorporating state-of-the-art technology and digital media into physical workspaces. In the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) domain, several research efforts are investigating the requirements of interactive workspaces (e.g., Liston et al. 2000, Christiansson et al. 2002, and Messner et al. 2005). In particular, Liston et al. (2000) has conducted a study to identify the requirements of interactive workspaces to support construction coordination with 4D (3D + time) models.  They developed an  initial set of requirements by studying paper-based workspaces, 4D workspaces, and a  18  prototype interactive workspace.  They concluded that interactive workspaces help  construction teams to perform more meaningful tasks. This research provides a useful framework for our study of interactive workspaces to support design development and coordination.  2.3  Study of paper-based workspaces  We studied the design development meetings of the Center for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS) project being constructed near downtown Vancouver, British Columbia. This is a joint project between the University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University, the B C Institute of Technology, and the Emily Carr Institute of Art+ Design. CIRS will be a 65,000 square foot facility that aims to be the most innovative and high performance building in North America, demonstrating leading edge research and sustainable design, products, systems and decision making.  7  Figure 2.2: 3D rendering of the Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability Project (source: Busby Perkins + Will)  We observed eight design development meetings for the CIRS project (a total of 22 hours). These meetings took place in a paper-based physical workspace (Figure 2.1a). A l l meetings were recorded on video for later review. During seven of these meetings, consultants on the project met to discuss design alternatives and logistics of coordinating  their work. The eighth meeting was dedicated to scheduling milestones for the design phase of the project. A t least 3 authors were present at each meeting. One author was an active participant in some of the meetings; the others were passive observers who collected complete observational logs. These logs formed the basis of a qualitative analysis, as is often done to determine workspace requirements in the domains of information visualization and computer-supported cooperative work ( C S C W ) .  In our  analysis, we systematically categorized interactions between meeting participants and the physical artifacts that were used in meeting activities (e.g. paper, notebooks, and mobile devices such as P D A s and cell phones). This formal "coding" of artifact interactions allowed us to understand the work practices of participants and the kinds of user interactions that need to be supported in an effective digital workspace environment. Based on our observations, several major design implications to facilitate interaction emerged:  1. Make shared information persistently accessible to all members of the group Shared documents, such as architectural plans, were usually placed in the centre of the table. When the diagrams were central to the discussion, people gathered around them and often pointed or gestured over the diagrams simultaneously. Moreover, when the discussion diverged from the documents to other topics, the documents were left in place, where they could still be seen by most participants. People then frequently referred back to the document content by simply pointing. These observations suggest that a tabletop display may be beneficial. Furthermore, i f these documents had been closed or placed at a distance, we expect people would not have expended the effort to access them for such quick references. Thus, persistence should be maintained wherever possible to ensure that information will be used effectively during meetings (e.g., by turning off screen savers on shared displays).  2. Support erasable annotation via direct input Pointing and gesturing towards shared documents was very common. People also made explicit drawing-like actions over diagrams, usually without actually making marks on the paper. In at least one instance, participants wrote on blank tracing paper placed over the diagram instead of on the diagram itself. W e conjecture that annotating diagrams  20  could be very useful if it could be done without permanently changing, the master copy. Such annotation should be done through direct input (e.g. pen or finger interaction directly on the diagram) because direct interaction allows people to seamlessly switch between annotation, pointing, and gesturing. Direct input can also serve to attract attention and emphasize ideas in addition to creating the actual marks on the page. Technologies such as S M A R T Boards enable these interaction techniques.  3. Support individual activities without interfering with group activity Individual activities were common and important during group meetings. Often individuals needed to view, manipulate, or annotate artifacts (e.g. paper or electronic documents) without distracting the rest of the group from their discussion. These artifacts sometimes belonged to the individual, but other times were artifacts shared by the group, which were not currently in use. For example, a person might take a document from the center of the table to take a closer look at an artifact that was previously discussed. People also manipulated shared documents in preparation for later use. For example, an architect might flip through a large collection of architectural drawings to display the one most relevant to the current discussion in case it was useful as a reference. Similarly, during the scheduling meeting, the moderator placed several milestones on a shared timeline while the discussion diverged to other topics in preparation of discussing those milestones later (Figure 2.3).  We believe these types of activities need to be possible  without distracting other members of the group because they were central to the workflow of the design meetings we observed. We also observed that simultaneous access to personal copies of the same information could be helpful. When photocopies of a document were handed out, people often browsed or annotated their personal copy during discussion. We believe that Tablet PCs with easy access to shared information could provide support for these individual activities.  4. Support subgroup activities Subgroup activities  were just as important as individual activities during  meetings. These included whispering to a neighbor, holding a side conversation with a few people, and sharing documents with a small group. The mobility of paper documents facilitated subgroup activities in these meetings.  21  For example, paper documents  frequently moved to the center of a group activity, allowing the document to be viewed by that group separately from other subgroups. In addition, pointing to a paper document or moving it toward someone could get their attention without distracting the group as a whole.  These observations suggest that mobile computing technology (Tablet P C s ,  P D A s ) might be useful in supporting subgroup activities in an interactive workspace.  5. Provide very simple means for transferring information to shared displays Our observations suggest that moving information from personal devices to shared displays needs to be trivial (e.g., through removable U S B drives or a common data repository accessible from all computers). For example, we found that some participants would prefer to share information on smaller displays instead of displaying them on a larger display because it did not break the flow of their current activity. In one meeting a participant turned his laptop around to share some information with the group even though there was a data projector plugged in at the other end of the table (Figure 3). This solution left some participants unable to see the screen. Furthermore, it was difficult for the owner to interact with his computer. In addition to requiring little effort on the part of participants, information transfer mechanisms need to be available to any participant on demand during the meeting. Participants often discussed topics that were not on the agenda, and therefore could not always predict prior to the meeting exactly what information would be needed.  6. Maintain support for traditional artifacts Although we believe that computer support is valuable for many aspects of design coordination activities, we do not believe that traditional artifacts (e.g. paper and physical models) can be replaced entirely. Some tasks may be better done on paper because of its ability to support very flexible interactions. Given the nature of these meetings, it is reasonable to expect that meeting participants will continue to bring a wealth of information to the meetings. Some of this information may only be available, or may be more readily accessible, in non-digital form. A successful interactive workspace should provide physical space  for traditional artefacts  conjunction with digital media.  22  and should support  their use in  Figure 2.3: Construction manager working with scheduling milestones (left), and participants t laptops around to share information with the group (right).  7. Make spatial relationships between different diagrams easy to see With paper documents, meeting participants often spend time comparing two or more diagrams to understand how they were spatially related. We observed one instance where participants could not determine whether the two diagrams depicted the same building site because there was no explicit connection between the diagrams. Providing explicit cues to make spatial relationships clear (e.g., by automatically rotating diagrams of the same area to the same orientation and overlaying them) could reduce time spent on such comparisons and improve meeting productivity. Liston et al. (2000) also recognized the need to interact with and visually communicate critical relationships between project information.  8. Make properties of the building design clear and easily accessible Design details such as 3D structures and material properties of objects are not clear from printouts of 2D design drawings. Our observations revealed that participants spent substantial time explaining the 3D nature of structures using hand gestures and clarifying other aspects of the design (e.g. that a particular wall was to be made of glass). Digital media, including 3D modelling and the use of colour, can make such information more accessible. Liston et al. (2000) also cited the need to interact with different kinds of project information and make group appropriate views of project information available to all participants.  23  2.4  Study of interactive workspaces  We studied the design coordination meetings of a Chemical and Biological Engineering Research project for the University of British Columbia (UBC) (Tabesh and StaubFrench 2005), and a Bio-pharmaceutical Pilot Plant project for Sequus Pharmaceuticals (Staub-French and Fischer 2001).  These projects were unique because they were  designed and coordinated electronically using 3D C A D .  The U B C research facility  consists of teaching and research spaces for the study of biological, chemical, environmental and process engineering. The Sequus facility consists of office space, manufacturing space, and process development space. The building systems on these projects were complex and accounted for a large part of the total project cost, which made them ideal candidates for 3D modeling. We observed approximately 12 design coordination meetings on these projects. We documented the 3D views utilized, the design conflicts identified, and the solutions proposed. Team members typically gathered around a conference table and viewed the integrated 3D models on a computer projection (Figure 2.1b).  Interaction with the  computer was typically through a keyboard and mouse controlled by one individual. Key project participants reviewed the integrated  model to identify design conflicts,  brainstormed possible solutions for resolving the conflicts, and documented the results which were reviewed at the next meeting. Typically, the activities for identifying and presenting design conflicts were accomplished electronically, while the brainstorming and documenting activities were performed using paper-based sketches and annotations. We also conducted experiments in our state-of-the-art interactive workspace (Figure 1c) to simulate activities observed in 3D design coordination meetings. These experiments investigated the extent to which 3D design coordination could be supported by state-of-the-art collaboration technologies. Our state-of-the art interactive workspace at U B C consists of two S M A R T Board displays that are arranged in a conference room format. The S M A R T Boards are electronically connected to the conference table so that switching capability is built directly into the table. This configuration enables any team member to connect to the S M A R T Boards through the table and share their information with the team. The workspace is outfitted with a control device that controls how inputs  24  are directed to the different displays. Participants can interact directly with the projected image via touch or pen input. This interaction changes the dynamics of work practice by allowing any individual to control input without passing a keyboard and mouse. Moreover, areas of conflict can be marked and design ideas can be sketched directly on top of the digital image. Thus, brainstorming and documentation activities can be done digitally, providing direct correspondence between annotations and the 3D model. These benefits address some of the limitations of interactive workspaces used in industry today. However, additional functionality is necessary to fully support the process of design development and coordination. In addition to the integration, interactivity, and visualization requirements noted above, our studies of 3D design coordination suggest that the following functionality is required: 1. Identification and visualization of design conflicts We investigated  different 3D technologies that support automated conflict  detection and found that most are capable of detecting physical interferences (also referred to as 'hard conflicts') between components of different systems.  Figure 2.4  shows a hard conflict between conduit and ductwork that was automatically identified by Autodesk Building Systems™ (left) in 2D and Navisworks Clash Detective (right) in 3D. However, other type of interferences  (i.e.  'soft conflicts')  concerning issues like  clearances (e.g. the cable tray requires clearance on the top for access), or functionality (e.g. a series of conduits blocking the air terminal and the air flow) are also critical in developing coordinated models.  Navisworks Clash Detective provides support in  identifying conflicts that occur in clearance spaces around objects (e.g., clearance spaces for access). However, to identify the majority of soft conflicts, we have found that the functional, performance, tolerance, safety, and installation requirements must also be explicitly considered (Tabesh and Staub-French 2005).  25  Figure 2.4: Hard conflict between conduit and ductwork identified in Autodesk Building Systems (left) and Navisworks Clash Detective (right). 2. Support b r a i n s t o r m i n g activities to investigate design alternatives We observed that as project teams try to resolve design conflicts, they often explore a variety of alternatives that may address the problem. In these brainstorming activities, the project team explores a variety of 3D views to understand the nature of the problem.  Then, the participants may use hand gestures over the 3D projection to  communicate alternative routings and configurations, or they may sketch out their ideas on a 2D or 3D printout or on a blank piece of paper. With touch-sensitive S M A R T Board displays, participants can annotate directly on top of the 3D image using S M A R T Notebook or red-lining tools provided by the conflict detection software.  However,  current interactive technologies do not support sketching and annotating the models in 3D. For example, a participant can annotate an image of the conflict in 3D but if they then view the conflict from another perspective, the annotation is no longer evident. Additional functionality is necessary to enable project teams to brainstorm alternatives in 3D and link these alternatives to specific 3D views. 3.  Support documentation of the meeting process In 3D design coordination meetings, design conflicts are identified, alternatives  are explored, and hopefully a solution is developed and agreed to by all parties. Typically, one person or organization is responsible for documenting the meeting and sharing the Meeting Minutes.  Meeting Minutes, however, typically do not capture  collaborative aspects of the discussion, nor do they capture the process for how a solution is developed. Navisworks Clash Detective provides clash reports that document conflicts including the type of conflict, the status of the conflict, the date, and user comments. We  26  have found that SMART Boards facilitate this process through the annotation and screencapture functions.  However, we found that the interaction with multiple pieces of  software was not smooth and as a result, the history of the meeting captured was limited. For example, participants in design coordination meetings often view information in Word documents to convey other aspects of the 3D design. To compile a history of the meeting, users would have to string together numerous images captured from the screen, which would be time-consuming and lose the intelligence of the original documents. Alternatively, users would have to manually integrate the annotations made in different software with different formats into a single cohesive story. A successful interactive workspace should provide support for documenting the entire meeting process and results in a framework that is easy to use and supports multiple pieces of software. 2.5  Conclusions and future works  This paper describes an initial set of requirements for interactive workspaces to support 3D design development and coordination. We studied project teams in paper-based workspaces and current interactive workspaces.  These studies increased our  understanding of design teams and their work practices, and helped us to identify the requirements of effective digital workspace environments. We are currently implementing a state-of-the-art mobile interactive workspace for use during detailed design and construction of the CIRS project discussed previously. This interactive workspace will first be installed at the architect's office where we will study the project team as they conduct 3D design coordination meetings. Then, we will outfit the interactive workspace in a construction trailer to study construction meetings at the project site. These studies will provide additional insights into the requirements for 3D design coordination, as well as the requirements for construction coordination with 3D models. We are also investigating the underlying data schemas required to provide an integrated project environment, and visualization techniques to support information visualization and interaction.  27  Interactive  workspaces  can provide significant  benefits  to project teams  throughout the design and construction process. We believe that these workspaces will improve the utility of project information and the quality of the decision-making process.  2.6  References  Christiansson P., Da Dalto Laurent, Skjaerbaek J. O., Soubra S., Marache M . , (2002). "Virtual Environments for the A E C sector - The Divercity experience." Proceedings European Conference of Product and Process Modelling. eWork and eBusiness in A E C . September 9-11, Portoroz, Slovenia, pp. 49-55. Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G., and Beale, R. (2004). Groupware, In Human-Computer Interaction, Pearson Prentice Hall, pp. 663-715. Ishii, H . and Kobayashi, M . (1992). "ClearBoard: A seamless medium for shared drawing and conversation with eye "contact", Proceedings of the A C M Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 525-532. Izadi, S., Brignull, H., Rodden, T., Rogers, Y., and Underwood, M . (2003). "Dynamo: A public interactive surface supporting the cooperative sharing and exchange of media" Proc. of the 16th Annual A C M Symp. on User Interface Software and Tech, pp. 159168. Johanson, B., Fox, A., and Winograd, T. (2002). "The Interactive Workspaces project: Experiences with ubiquitous computing rooms". In IEEE Pervasive Computing, Vol. 1(2), pp. 67-74. Fischer, Martin, Liston, Kathleen; Kunz; John (2000). "Requirements and Benefits of Interactive Workspaces in Construction", the 8th Internationa] Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, August 14-17, Stanford University, CA, USA Fox A., Johanson B., Hanrahan P. and Winograd T. (2000). "Integrating information appliances into an Interactive Workspace", IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 20(3), pp. 54-65. Kam, C , Fischer, M . , Hanninen, R., Karjalainen, A., and Laitinen, J. (2003). "The Product Model and Fourth Dimension Project" Elec. J. of IT in Construction, Vol. 8, pp. 137-166. Khanzode, A., Fischer, M . , and Reed D. (2003), "Case Study of The Implementation of The Lean Project Delivery System (LPDS) using Virtual Building Technologies on a Large Healthcare Project" Proc. of IBLC-13, Sydney, Australia. McGrath, J. E. (1984). "Typology of tasks". In Groups: Interaction and Performance. Prentice-Hall, pp. 60-66. Olson, G. M . and Olson, J. S. (1997). "Research on computer supported cooperative work", In Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd Ed, Elsevier Science, pp. 1433-1456.  28  Pedersen, E. R., McCall, K., Moran, T. P. and Halasz, F. G. (1993). "Tiyoli: An electronic whiteboard for informal workgroup meetings", Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 391-398. Tabesh, R. and Staub-French, S. (2005). "Case Study of Constructability Reasoning in MEP Coordination", Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress, April 5-7, San Diego, C A . Staub-French, S., and Fischer, M . , (2001). "Industrial Case Study of Electronic Design, Cost, and Schedule Integration." Technical Report No. 122, CIFE, Stanford University, C A . Vertegaal, R. (1999). "The G A Z E groupware system: Mediating joint attention in multiparty communication and collaboration". Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 294-301.  29  CHAPTER 3: ASSESSMENT OF DECISION-MAKING IN PAPER-BASED DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND COORDINATION MEETINGS 1  3.1.  Introduction  Design development and coordination of construction projects requires collaboration of many different specialists from numerous disciplines, each contributing a particular body of knowledge to the overall effort.  The decision-making process involves and affects  many project participants including architects, engineering consultants, construction managers, facility maintenance organizations, facility users and property managers. During design and construction, these architectural-engineering-construction (AEC) teams meet regularly to coordinate their perspectives to ensure that the design meets the functional, aesthetic and economic requirements of the owner. Today, design meetings typically take place in physical workspaces, such as conference rooms, where all the relevant members of the team work together in the same place and time.  Although most project information is generated electronically, teams  primarily communicate and share information using paper-based representations. Emerging technologies (e.g., touch-sensitive large-screen displays, table-top displays, laptops, and tablet PC's) offer great promise in enriching today's paper-based workspaces to create what are known as interactive workspaces. Interactive workspaces are physical locations where people work, share, and use information together through electronic means.  Research has shown that interactive workspaces improve the utility of project  information and the quality of the decision-making process (e.g., Liston et al. 2000a& 2001 and Fox et al. 2000). Recently, 3D computer-aided design (CAD) tools are gaining acceptance and providing significant benefits to the design coordination process (e.g.,  A version of this chapter will be submitted for publication. The authorship will be: Golparvar Fard, M., Staub-French, S., Civil & Environmental Engineering Department, University of British Columbia,; Po, B. Computer Science Department, University of British Columbia and Tory, M, Computer Science Department, University of Victoria. 1  30  Staub-French and Fischer 2001, Khanzode et al. 2005, Kam et al. 2003).  Using 3D  design tools, design teams are able to integrate information electronically and identify potential design conflicts semi-automatically. Although the use of 3D C A D tools is well established, it remains unclear as to how such tools can be incorporated effectively into fully digital interactive workspaces where multiple groups of people work together to accomplish design development and coordination. There is a rapidly growing need to understand current work practices for the purpose of developing better tools to facilitate the interaction with digital information representation and documentation best suiting decision-making tasks. This research addresses this need by characterizing how people spend time performing collaborative decision-making tasks in design development meetings.  I  conducted a five-month field study of the design development process for the Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS) project being constructed near downtown Vancouver, British Columbia.  I observed weekly design development meetings and  performed a thorough post-meeting video analysis. During the meetings, I took detailed notes documenting the meeting activities, the kind of information sources and representations used, and the interactions meeting participants had with information. The video was analyzed to identify how time is spent on different decision-making tasks and to determine the effectiveness of those tasks. This research found that the majority of time in design development meetings is spent on descriptive (35%) and explanative (42%) tasks and very little time is spent on evaluative (12%) and predictive (11%) tasks.  However, the resolution rates were still  quite high in these meetings, with an average of 73%. Based on the meeting analysis, I identified an initial set of requirements for accomplishing design development tasks in a computer-supported  interactive  workspace.  In  summary,  successful  interactive  workspaces should support physical as well as digital artefacts, digital records of meetings, and digital overlays of schematic diagrams. In this chapter, I first summarize the research background on interactive workspaces and evaluation methods of collaborative decision-making. Then I provide an  31  overview of the case study, and research methodology. Finally, I discuss the observations and analysis of the CIRS project design development and coordination meetings.  3.2. 3.2.1.  Related research background Background on interactive workspaces  There are many cases in the literature where prototype tools and digital infrastructures have been used to support various group workspaces. These research efforts mainly fall into two domains: a) Architecture-Engineering-Construction domain and b) General collaborative workspaces domain.  a) Architecture-Engineering-Construction domain The iRoom infrastructure originally developed by Johanson, Fox, and Winograd (2002) has been extended and applied to design and construction meetings, perhaps most notably for the Centre for Integrated Facilities Engineering (CIFE) at Stanford (2000a&b, 2002 and 2005). In particular, the work of Liston et al. (2000) at CIFE showcases how digital tools might be used to augment 4D construction planning activities in an interactive workspace. Their study identifies the requirements of interactive workspace to support construction  decision-making  tasks  by  supporting  visualization  and  interactive  techniques. They observed current paper-based construction workspaces do not allow information interaction, views do not visually represent critical relationships and are not appropriate for group use and human and information resources are inefficiently utilized in decision-making. This research concludes interactive workspaces help construction teams to perform decision-making tasks better. Their research provides a useful point of departure to study the requirements of interactive workspaces to in design development and construction coordination. The Luminous planning table of Underkoffler and Ishii (1999) attempted to integrate multiple forms of physical and digital media for the purpose of supporting the process of urban design. The infrastructure where the application is based allows physical architectural models placed on a table surface to cast shadows accurate for arbitrary times of day; to throw reflections off glass facade surfaces; to affect a real-time and visually coincident simulation of pedestrian-level wind flow; and so on.  32  The Divercity project (Christiansson et al., 2002) proposed to develop a "shared virtual construction workspace" by combining product modelling technologies with simulation environments td allow construction companies conduct client briefing, design reviews, simulate what-if scenarios, perform constructability analysis and communicate and co-ordinate design activities between teams and evaluates the results on real-life projects. Their focus was on providing 3D-real time inspection features for detailed design software applications and resolves the discontinuity between these applications to allow results of one phase in design process to be used as an input for another phase. Messner et al. (2005) is another example where they have used visualization techniques to improve construction-engineering education. They proposed using virtual reality technologies and large-screen displays allows people to study real-life spaces at full-scale  adding more realism to their virtual experience.  They identified that  implementing 3D/4D C A D and the use of virtual reality allows people visualize the issues more clearly; facilitates analysis and obtain real-time feedback to the group. Interactive Intelligent Workplaces at University of South Australia has focused on interactive  workspaces.  There are working on integration, communication, and  coordination within workspaces but also a service that supports procedural and cognitive aspects of team interactions, and simulation within learning environments, which can adapt and evolve to meet individual and enterprise needs. In Interactive Workspace Laboratorium of University of Aarhus a part of Danish Centre for Pervasive Computing, researchers are developing pervasive computing technologies to support more natural user collaboration in a rich variety of application imploding them into small devices and appliances on one hand, and on the other exploding them onto large-scale walls, buildings and furniture. The goal of their experiments is to support projects with spatial computing components that go beyond existing augmented reality and collaborative virtual environments in terms of their ability to bring information objects (documents, C A D models, etc.) out of the computer and into the collaborative physical spaces as tangible objects. These components would then integrate in more natural ways with physical materials in people's work environments than does the traditional document in a scrolling window on a monitor.  33  The work by Rankin et al. (2006a) has also focused on the use of an Information Collaboration Laboratory aimed at optimising the present technological package to meet the needs of participants and improve technological functions. Their results present early applications of ICL in aspects of information management and decision-making. Hence, there is a need to assess the usability of digital media in A E C collaborative decisionmaking. b) General collaborative workspaces domain  Understanding group work inside collaborative workspaces is already the focus of much study, particularly in the areas of human-computer interaction (HCI) and computersupported cooperative work (CSCW).  Olson and Olson (1997) and Dix et al. (2004)  provide general reviews of the work in these areas. Furthermore, the work of Sellen and Harper (2002) on the use and management of paper in various workplaces is revealing when viewed in the context of how paper is used during design development. A case study has been performed to examine a company eager to reduce paper in their work process by not adopting an all-or-nothing approach. It was found out that reduction of paper serves to facilitate the work process and employee attitudes but still the company needs paper for specific documents like contracts. Meeting support systems such as the Tivoli electronic whiteboard (1993), the iL A N D roomware system (Streitz et al., 1998), and the Dynamo multi-user surface (Izadi et al., 2003) contain digital elements that might be desirable for computer-supported design development. In particular, the i-Land project undertaken by the Ambiente Group at GMD-IPSI in Darmstadt, Germany is somewhat similar to Stanford's Interactive Workspaces project in that it focuses more on human interaction aspects. The project has developed a range of Roomware components, including the Interac Table, CommChairs, and a large screen interactive display called DynaWall. Their work focuses on the development of custom applications rather than integrating "off the shelf applications as is the case for the Interactive Workspaces project. MIT's Intelligent Room project in an example where MetaGlue is used which is an agent-based  architecture to provide computational glue  for large groups of  collaborative software agents and device controllers. A primary focus of their project is  34  in the area of context awareness to allow environments to be aware of, and respond automatically to users' needs (designated a type of intelligence). The work also focuses on natural modes of human-computer interactions including the use of speech and gestures. At UIUC, researchers are using an infrastructure in a project named Active Spaces to manage computational resources within a physical space. The approach is based on the use of a meta-operating system for ubiquitous computing rooms called GaiaOS. The Active Spaces work takes more of an enterprise computing perspective than the other projects discussed in that the focus is on extending the concepts of traditional operating systems to support heterogeneous distributed ubiquitous spaces, where a space could range from a single mobile user through to collaborative environments such as conference.  3.2.2. Background on evaluating A E C decision-making process There  is  on-going  research to  study  group decision-making  and sources  and  representations of information utilized in the meetings. "Based on a framework defined on "Cognitive Fit" between information representations and tasks developed by Vessey (1991), researchers in GIS (Smelcer and Carmel, 1994), business graphics (Dennis and Carte, 1998) were able to assess the impact of digital representations" (Liston et al., 2001). Their research helps  to assess the change  form paper-based to digital  representation of information. The work by McGrath (1984) is another example, which provides a complete framework for understanding the kinds of tasks that take place in collaborative settings, most of which are relevant to interactive workspaces for building design and coordination. North and Schneiderman (1999) is another example where the value of coordinated visualization in exploring complex information has been studied at the task level. The overview and detail-view coordination have been studied to see if they improve user performance depending in different types of tasks. In A E C domain, Liston et al. (2000b & 2001), Fischer et al. (2005) and Rankin et al. (2006) are trying to map characteristics of information representations to decision-making tasks and evaluate information action on those tasks.  35  Many of these research efforts, evaluate information use at the task level and are designed  to compare the decision making process  between users of traditional  environments, and those of interactive environments, and hence identify the value added to the decision making process for users of interactive workspaces. This research is similar to these research efforts. For the purpose of fitting the assessment framework initially created by Liston K., Fischer M . and Kunz, J. at Stanford University to the environment of our study, I have modified and extended the framework to generate a coding scheme which fits the CIRS naturalistic observational study. This part of research has been a collaboration of our research team in U B C with Kathleen Liston of Stanford University. Our goal in the long-term research is to apply the same framework to interactive workspace to evaluate the changes in performance of decision-making tasks in different workspaces.  3.3.  Research objectives  This research aims to better understand the nature of design development and coordination meetings and the ways in which digital collaborative technology might be used to support the work practices of those engaged in design development activities. To accomplish this goal, I conducted a detailed analysis on the collaborative decisionmaking process in CIRS design development and coordination meetings. The specific research objectives are as follows: (a) To explore how A E C teams spend time in performing collaborative decisionmaking tasks in paper-based design development and coordination meetings. (b) To study the characteristics of current information sources and representations utilized in paper-based workspaces. (c) To assess the effectiveness and resolution of different decision-making tasks performed in A E C design development and coordination meetings. (d) To identify major features of different collaborative design development meetings observed, (i.e. design development, value engineering and scheduling meetings).  36  (e) To develop an initial set of requirements for interactive workspaces based on observations of paper-based workspaces. Fulfilment of these objectives will provide an understanding of how people spend time in design development and coordination meetings, the effectiveness of the process and the types of information representations used to facilitate the process. It also identifies initial requirements for digital technologies in interactive workspaces. Conducting the same analysis on digitally supported interactive workspaces in the rest of design development and coordination meetings  as well as construction  coordination meetings helps to study the entire meetings within a construction project. It also allows identifying the features of electronically supported workspaces and its effect on decision-making tasks. The complete set of analysis would allow us to classify a full set of requirements for interactive workspaces and types of digital technologies required to support these tasks. Figure 3.1 shows snapshots of the different workspaces.  Figure 3.1: Snapshots of different workspaces: From the left (a) current paper-based workspace, (b) UBC interactive workspace prototype, and (c) Mobile-Interactive-Workspace (MIW) mobilized to the main design coordination meeting room at CIRS architectural firm.  3.4.  Case study: The CIRS project  We have conducted a five-month field study of design development and coordination meetings for the Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS) project being constructed near downtown Vancouver, British Columbia. CIRS is a joint project between the University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University, the BC Institute of Technology, and the Emily Carr Institute of Art+ Design. CIRS will be a 65,000sf facility that aims to be the most innovative and high performance building in North America, demonstrating leading edge research and sustainable design, products, systems and decision making (Figure 3.2).  37  Figure 3.2: 3D Renderings of the Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS) Project (Source: Busby Perkins + Will, on CIRS Project directory on Buzzsaw)  The project involved many different A E C specialists and stakeholders regularly attended  the  design  development  and coordination meetings.  Typical  design  development meetings involved discussing recent design progress by the meeting participants, coordinating different system designs, and brainstorming alternatives to satisfy particular design problems. Specific meetings were scheduled to ensure that the design met the building owner's requirements (e.g. budget and building program), and complied with regulations (e.g. zoning, building codes, and sustainability). For collaboration purposes on the CIRS project, the team used Autodesk Buzzsaw document-sharing system,  where participants archived and shared their meeting  documents in digital form before and after meetings. These documents included meeting agendas, meeting  minutes, 2D and 3D C A D drawings and models,  schedules,  geotechnical reports, cost information and sketches. Although most project information is generated electronically, paper-based representations were primarily used in these meetings. Figure 3.3 & 3.4 demonstrates different meetings and information sources and representations in CIRS meetings.  38  Figure 3.3: Three different types of meeting observed. From the left: (a) design development meeting, (b) scheduling meeting, and (c) value engineering analysis meeting.  Figure 3.4: Information representations utilized in CIRS: From the left (a) plans and views of architectural design development set, (b) Design development schedule created on a whiteboard, and (c) design details, architectural design development set and design schedule in a design development meeting observed.  3.5.  Research methodology  To gather a relevant body of data, a naturalistic observation of regular design development meetings (both in situ and video analysis) has been performed. We have attended and analyzed different types of meetings throughout the design process: 1. Three traditional design development meetings; 2. two scheduling meetings that focused on critical design and construction milestones; and 3. three value engineering meetings dedicated to cut the construction budget as the design had a significant overrun. These meetings were held in different places: a large boardroom at the architectural firm, a boardroom at project managements firm, and a smaller meeting room at the architectural firm (Figure 3.3). tables.  In all meetings, participants were gathered around large conference  These tables were not augmented with any digital collaboration technology.  Meetings ranged between ten to thirty co-located participants.  39  We had access to Buzzsaw to track what information sources and representations were shared in and after the meetings. Copies of many of these documents used by meeting participants were also collected and reviewed as part of the subsequent analysis of information sources and representations in these meetings.  They provided a useful  secondary source of data in terms of providing context for information used for many of the specific discussions and activities that occurred in particular meetings. Over the five-month period, we observed these weekly meetings, which were roughly three hours in length. While the meetings took place, we took detailed notes about meeting activities, the kinds of information sources and representations used, and the interactions that meeting participants had with information. Complete video recordings with audio were collected throughout these meetings, permitting a more thorough post-meeting video analysis to take place.  High-resolution still photos were  also taken at regular intervals during the meetings.  Capturing meetings in this way is  important because we believe it would allow us to assess how group decision-making process would change as digital collaboration tools are introduced to the work practice. Based on the observations made by research observers at these meetings and the assessment framework adopted in this study, a comprehensive video coding scheme was developed with the intent of capturing key performance metrics of decision-making tasks. Of the meetings observed, we coded eight meetings ( approximately twenty-four hours of video in total). We selected mostly the later meetings for coding because design had made more significant progress (e.g., early meeting were more introductory and mostly did not involve critical decision-making tasks). In the sections that follow, I first describe the metrics of our study and the video coding scheme, then I present the results of the meeting analysis categorized by the meeting purpose.  3.6.  Decision-making assessment framework  In an observational study, tasks can be characterized in a variety of ways depending on the "purpose of the characteristics" (Vessey, 1991 and Liston et al, 2000b). In this study, tasks are first categorized relative to the type of task according to Liston's framework.  40  Then the tasks are categorized by the form and type of information sources and representations used (Liston et al, 2000b).  3.6.1.  Types of tasks  Four major types of tasks are identified in the decision-making process, which is demonstrated in Table 3.1. T a b l e 3.1:  First category of tasks by type  Task Type  Description  Descriptive Tasks  Describing project and process: the 'who', 'what', 'where', 'when', and  Explanative Tasks  Explaining the design rationale or project criteria - the 'why' questions.  Evaluative Tasks  Evaluating design alternatives and checking if design requirements are  'how' of the project information  met, e.g., "comparing a design alternative with another alternative/ a set of cost information against another set of information." Predictive Tasks  Predicting impacts of changes or specific decisions on overall project design/goals - asking 'what i f or 'what happens to' questions.  Performance metrics used to capture each decision-making task are: 1. Time per task (in minutes and seconds) 2. Task resolution (Complete "C", Incomplete "I", Needs Confirmation "N/C")  3.6.2.  Form/type of information sources and representations  Table 3.2 demonstrates the information types and forms used to categorize the information sources and representation. For each decision-making task, the types/forms and quantity of information representation used are captured to calculate the information/task ratio. Based on Liston's definition, the Information/task ratio is a function of the types/forms and quantity of information representations required performing the task. I have captured different information representation types/forms at the task level to measure this ratio. For instance, tasks that require only looking at one piece of information, such as a distance or measurement from a 2D drawing have a value of ' 1'. Information that requires spatial and temporal and cost, for example, would be a ratio of '3'. The information/task ratio in the meeting level is the average of information sources and representation used per task in that meeting.  41  Table 3.2: Information representation forms and types Form  Temporal  Spatial  Quantitative  Symbolic  Semantic  Type Temporal Chart 2D 3D Physical model 3D Virtual model 4D -  Text  ^•PlSliSllll  Diagram Symbol Chart Table  Forms and types of information sources and representations  3.6.3.  Coding scheme  Based on the metrics defined above, I developed a video coding scheme using Noldus Observer X T  1  (Figure 3.5), which includes three sections:  (a) Subjects of study: The subjects of the study include a list of the project participants that attended the meetings (Table 3.3 and Figure 3.5). (b) Behaviours: For the purpose of using the performance metrics in the assessment framework, two different behaviours are introduced in the coding scheme: 1) Type of task 2) Type/form of information sources and representations used at task levels in each meeting. In this way, first the subject who initiates the task is identified, and then type of task and the type/form of information sources and representations the subject uses to perform that task are captured. (Figure 3.5b)  http://www.noldus.com  42  T a b l e 3.3:  List of Subjects of the study Coding Acronyms  o  o  o  o  Contractors  "C"  o  C o n s t r u c t i o n M a n a g e m e n t ( H e a d o f the team and the estimators)  o  Mechanical Contractor  o  Electrical Contractor  "CM" "MC" "EC"  D e s i g n / E n g i n e e r i n g T e a m s (Consultants)  "S"  o  Structural E n g i n e e r  "SE"  o  Mechanical Engineer  "ME"  o  Electrical Engineer  "EE"  o  C o d e Consultant  "CC"  o  Project M a n a g e r  "PM"  Architects o Building Architects o Landscape Architects  "BA"  Others  "R"  o  BioFirm  o  Altus Helyar (Value Engineering Team)  "LA"  "AH"  (c) Modifiers: The modifiers are sub-divisions of behaviours of the study: types of tasks and types/forms of information sources. •  Type/form of information sources and representations: Temporal Chart, 2D, 3D, 4D, text, diagram, symbol, chart and table are defined as task information form modifiers for tasks types shown in table 3.2.  •  Task resolution: Resolution of each task is also captured either as complete, incomplete or needs confirmation. Figure 3.5 shows a snapshot of the coding scheme captured from Noldus Observer X T software.  Based on the coding scheme provided, tasks types, information representation and the modifiers are captured at the task level. Figure 3.6 demonstrates a snapshot of a meeting analysis interface which is used to capture these performance metrics. For each decision-making task, first, the start time is captured, and then subjects initiating the discussion, their behaviour (type of task, type of information representations) and related modifiers observed are also captured while allowing to insert comments on the discussion. As the task is finished, the resolution of the task and the finish time are also recorded.  43  Subject Name  :  Description  3  t 1 h  |  D  •  I r~ "T~n~  n  j r~  d P j u b a w r i  :  *  -J  e  f; Ladscape Architects 1: Owner /Client - •! $ Trades $ Bio Firm  EH  Channels  m  & i% Architects ; i- • I Building Architects  (a)  Modifiers  •  * Mechanical Contractor t; E lec(ricai Contractor B J. $ Engineering Design Teams , S tructural E ngineering Mechanical Engineering Electrical Engineering ; Code Consultant Project Manager ; Simens  ~  "~Z  r-j |— J J  r r  jT n  ...  IJLLGJ • r  ftunrinn  Description  4-  (b)  :  1st Category of Tasks jb Descriptive Explanative Evaluative •% Pfedictive 2nd Category of Tasks Spatial Symbolic -;\ Temporal Quantitative Semantic  Modifier Name  (c)  • Temporal Chart • 2D • 3D « 4D • Text * Diagram * Symbol • Chart » Table • Visual Pesenlalion - *® Completeness • C • 1 * Needs Confirmation  Channels  1 'who', 'what', 'where', 'when', and 'how' of the project Explaining project decisions or the schedule rationale - the 'why' questions comparing one set of information against another set of information asking 'what if of 'what happens to Questions Task Forms 2D.3D.4D.Text Diagram. Symbol Temporal Charts, Text. Diagram, Symbol, Table Temporal Charts, Text, Chart, Table 2D.4D. Text  t b  IT V  V  P  P 2  1  Ar  Description  M  .  _  m a  t  y  m q a  •€ 1/1  ~  < y m  1  State Event State Event Completeness State Event i Completeness State Event .....JL! Completeness State Event Completeness State Event Completeness State Event j 2D, 3D, 4D, Text w State Event 1 Diagram, Symbol State Event ; Temporal Chart, Text, Diagram, Symbol, Table State Event ; Temporal Chart, Text, Chart, Table State Event 2D. 4D, Text  Temporal Diart; 2D; 3D; 40. Text, Diagram; Symbol; Chart; Table. Visual  i~2 " |~3 4 e  d m c a 5 , Needs Confirmation _ L k q  Figure 3.5: Snapshot of the coding scheme: a) subjects, b) behaviours and c) modifiers  ^  *£  m  •  s ^ ...  ^  %  0  rf" IX EL EL r j— n  r.  Col.-  MS  tttti  mm •ra NMH  . The Observe* XT  £to £tft  tye*  April 19th ft  _*up _3ssr«e Select Wsuafce Analyze Exflort _*xk>w Heto J  tVofrllEipto.*. ^  Tnw a i j e <' i foi heto :  *p«!i o:»ih. /QiU, pi rvem tefjoaai  •!» •; Scheme  i  Timer Currer* Start Evert Leg Slop Evsrt Leg Observed OtwetvMion BepsW QfcservetKfi Rernanr^ Observation Otxervtciori Begin Ot»**rvati«i Ent  ~3 erf  jJ '.:•-.•-.> i • stable 16.3*18.096  I J. Ap-'O&h 2006. CP I Part 3 it! £  ^i-iM'J- .If* ,(, L C- I  T l6.-2:is :n sip 1 eV M .B< 33 j!  18:23:18.088 16 48 46 644 •0.26.3* 75i •00517 74a +021:11.011 16 3116 086 16 48-46.644  • |g AanlOSft 2006 CD 6 Part 2 H Ai„,l OStti 2006. pi ^ Obaaivato" Settngi  * i*J EvtmUg:  I ~$ ''•'.•>.,.^ Eitemal Pan « ^ ~; i.. • jji AN 05*. 200G. p3 £ jj£ Apri 09th. 20K ** m & Apnliah CCBP«n3 * h Aertl9rvCt'A-PaHl •  J  AC4T9>VCDA P « I 2  • .1. Ii J I. J MifiagemenI  • '>...L A-P*» : * ijaj l9eVdftF'*M * S Apl ISnvCOe-Pa* 1 * Jaj, AoriM»h-CDB-Paff2 i % Fe&08-P«iZ ft U. F«b08Pwl iii jy. FabOfrPe*!  • # f«bOB-P«i»4  Codes r.-External Data Obseivstian tineis Playback Conlia  V.J*.  Fie SyKtiro™."'^* n  -  {1 1 il f atagotp of ; DoldipltV* ,1 1 HplcHi.ihve  * Evaluative •1 Predictive  1  v  P  1• QuS M | bacfi antitative  IndapendertVaiatale Usl  1 b  |  I  2  -. \% '?ndSpatial Category ol Ta.. f_ 1 Hi | nil :| '• i- II ii.nl ii  Contlto.  -i  •  t  . 1*  m  .....J ...  1  §  H0L ijii aj|jl| l»JU|N| i l i » us  H  mi  i»i  c  Netreurdng  PJa^ftaA speed T*w 1.0 * I6:»  ir—ii—if 1 -  Figure 3.6: Snapshots of meeting analysis interface based on the CIRS analysis coding scheme  3.6.4.  Post-coding analysis  After the video coding is completed and performance metrics for tasks and information representations are captured, a post-coding analysis is performed. F o r the purpose of introducing the post-coding analysis, a results sheet for one of the meetings is exemplified in figure 3.7. A list of metrics representing the resolution rates of meeting and effectiveness in the sub-level of task types are also provided. These meeting performance metrics as defined by Kathleen Liston are described as follow: Resolution Rate: Resolution rate is the average of the number of resolved tasks relative to the total number of tasks on each type. Resolution Productivity: Resolution productivity is the duration of tasks resolved relative to the total duration of tasks. For each type of task, the resolution productivity percentage is calculated and would be averaged.  45  Meeting Productivity: Meeting productivity is a function of time spent on tasks that are resolved relative to the overall meeting duration. Total time on resolved tasks relative to the total meeting duration is calculated. Meeting productivity would be the average of this parameter and resolution rate. Task Effectiveness: The same function of meeting productivity is used for task effectiveness but at the task level instead of the meeting. On a certain task type, task effectiveness is the average of "time spent on those tasks that are resolved relative to the overall time spent on that specific task type" and "total number of resolved tasks within that certain task type relative to the total number of tasks in that specific type". Average  Information/Task Ratio:  is  the  total  number of information  representations used in a meeting to the total number of tasks. In other words, as the types/forms of the information representation is captured at the task level, the sum of those representations to the total number of tasks, would be the average information/task ratio.  46  Meeting Productivity Total Time Resolution Rate: Resolution Productivity Average Info/Task Ratio Total Representations Total Info. Types Descriptive Time Spent 00: 43: 25 % Time 26% # 38 % Total 23% # Resolved 31 % Total 82% Res Task Time 00:29:52 % Res Task Time 69% Task Effectiveness 75%  52% 02:50:15 hh:mm:ss 49% 45% 0.16 14 5 Evaluative Explanative 00: 34: 33 01:01:08 20% 36% 30 73 18% 44% 9 51.5 30% 71% 00:04:54 00:48:54 14% 80% 22% 75%  Type of Tasks (Percentage of Time)- April 05th- First V / A S e s s i o n  Evaluative 20%  Descriptive  27% Predictive 00: 31: 09 18% 26 16% 4 15% 00:05:23 17% 16%  Explanative 35%  Figure 3.7: An example of a post-coding analysis results sheet (April 05th, 2006 CIRS value engineering meeting )  Predictive 18%  3.7.  Analysis of the Meetings  In the sections that follow, I describe in detail each of the meeting types.  First, the  motivation for that specific meeting type, the information sources and representation used, and other meeting details are introduced. Then, the post-coding analysis results and specific tasks that best exemplify the meeting type are presented. Important observations are also discussed and where possible, are accompanied with examples. The results of all eight design development and coordination meetings together are also analysed later in this section to compare the different meeting types and to study the effect of successive meetings on group decision-making.  3.7.1.  Design development meetings  We have studied three consecutive design developments meeting (Feb 8th, 15th and 22nd, 2006). We are selecting later meetings in design development meetings for coding because design had made a significant progress as early meeting were introductory and mostly did not involve critical decision-making tasks. 3.7.1.1. Task level results On average, 67 statements have been coded for decision-making tasks per meeting with an overall duration of 01:59:07. Only 48 out of 67, task are resolved (resolution rate=70%) and this has taken on average a duration of 01:32:42 (resolution productivity=73%). Figure 3.8 shows the time spent on different task types and the effectiveness of each task. These results demonstrate that the majority of time is spent on descriptive and explanative tasks while little time is spent on predictive and evaluative tasks. Evaluative and predictive tasks are often left incomplete and are typically addressed at subsequent meetings.  The calculated resolution  rate for each of the task types are as follows: Descriptive tasks = 75%, Evaluative tasks = 22%, Explanative tasks= 75% and Predictive tasks= 16%. The values presented in figure 3.8 are realtive value to the total time spent on each task type.  48  Figure 3.8: Average time distribution among different tasks in design development meetings, line: Percentage of tasks effective  I have also studied the attributes of the change in decision-making tasks in Feb 15th design development meeting. Figure 3.9 exemplifies the flow of task types within this meeting over the rear trend-line (light gray).  A s demonstrated, most of the tasks are descriptive and  explanative tasks; however, the trend-line on occasion reaches the evaluative and predictive tasks levels. The fore trend-line (dark gray) shows the rate of resolution within the tasks. Those tasks that are complete, the resolution area has fully covered the task. However i f the task needs confirmation, only half overlap is shown, and for incomplete tasks, the trend-line shows no value. The figure also shows that evaluative and predictive tasks are more often incomplete in comparison to descriptive and explanative tasks.  4')  Predietive  Evaluative Q.  Explanatwe  Desert  C V 0 „ f e , T - . . Vfe.C L O . A J U S L . O J . S f e ^ . ^ ^ „ ^ . f e . f e > T ' fe^O~<3, V * 3 fe„T, b. fe T..fe, fe„fe ' b A ^ A ^ ^ V t ' > ife® ,b A :t>-fe^.fe ^ f e e J g M S .'P.i&'tW N  LA  a  N  v  ^fe^fe>^>^  9 u 5 W \ A K A . \ , A „ f e fe,A fe^fe,V fe-fe-A..^ fe,A.O.,fe,,fe, T..fe.fe<3. rx,fe,K VJb Q fe fe, fe \  b  \ feb.„fe A  vSfe^h^fe*h^N*r,<"o'><T-V<V o 9 Meeting time  (mm:ss.O)  Figure 3.9: Distribution of task and task resolution within Feb 15th design development meeting (rear trend-line, Task Types: Descriptive, Explanative, Evaluative and Predictive, fore trend-line, task resolutions: Full height= Complete, Zero height= Incomplete, Half- height= Needs confirmations)  The following provides examples of the different tasks and information representations that best characterize the type of meeting we observed: a) Descriptive task: In one of the meetings, the mechanical consultant initiates a task while describing the water distribution system, and how best to deal with storm water. It seems they are unfamiliar with the active slab system; he thinks they need more time to get to know the piping systems in the slab. In this discussion, the mechanical details and architectural plan/views were used but no decision was made, the task was not completed and moved to a later time to get resolved. b) Explanative task: The Owner explains a series of their ideas on design: demountability of structure, the possible option to use a water storage tank for storm water to pump back for wash room usage... The idea of using gravity force instead of pumping is explained.... He explains why they need a backup system for sewage to be connected to the City system... In these discussions, the owner demonstrated his ideas on the 2 D design development plans. Figure 3.10-b shows different snapshots of explanative tasks.  Figure 3.10: Snapshots of design development, from left: (a) Mechanical Engineer is showing details of the chilled beam system; (b) the Owner's representative is discussing design with the building architect, and (c) the main inter-institutional partner on research is explaining the rationale of the vision wall to the building architects.  c) Evaluative task: In these meetings, the whole discussion around chilled beam and/or chilled slab was the main evaluation done. The mechanical consultant used the 2D architectural drawing and hand-drawn sketches to communicate design ideas but no decision was made at the meeting. The other major evaluation has been around the structural system to be steel or wood. Ideas like risk, escalation, demountability, and connections were discussed.  51  d) Predictive task: Example predictive tasks were initiated by the mechanical consultant: Can we test the chilled beam system? What i f we change the floor-to-floor height? Only an architectural 2 D plan was utilized in this task. Table 3.4 shows this predictive task from our actual coded notes. Table  3.4:  An example of detailed coding on a predictive task  S pil i r> .• 2 .5 c .5 Duration </3 H E H  —  <"-! £ —  01:04.7  c u- . Subject  ME  Discussion/ Utterance Can we test the chilled beam system? What-if we change the floor-toceiling height?  Task Type  Info Ref  Info Referenced  Task . Completion  P  2D  1  I  _ Comments  3.7.1.2. M e e t i n g level results Figure 3.11 shows the averages for all three design development meetings in terms of the decision-making tasks. This figure shows how time is distributed among task types and number of tasks that were observed in these meetings. Quantity of resolved tasks and the time spent are also captured, and relative values to overall time and/or quantity of tasks are computed accordingly. With the post-coding performance metrics introduced before, the meeting resolution rate, resolution productivity and meeting productivity are computed. The average values for all the metrics are calculated and presented in figure 3.9. The results show that the project team performed their tasks in these meetings with a good level of effectiveness in general (Meeting productivity^ 75%, Resolution Rate=70% and Resolution Productivity= 73%). The full analysis for all design development meetings can be found in appendix II.  52  Meeting Productivity Total Time  Resolution Rate: Resolution Productivity Average Info/Task Ratio Total Representations Total Info. Types Descriptive Time Spent 00:44:06 % Time 37% # 24 % Total 37% # Resolved 20.7 % Total 85% Res Task Time 00:38:05 % Res Task Time 86% Task Effectiveness 86%  75% 01:59:07  hh:mm:ss  Evaluative  70%  15%  73%  0.67 6 3 Evaluative 00:17:19  Explanative 00:47:08  Predictive 00:10:35  15%  40%  9%  10 15% 7.7 77% 00:12:39 73%  25 37% 17.8 72% 00:36:15 77%  8 12% 3.5 46% 00:05:43 54%  75%  75%  50%  Figure 3.11: Design development meetings post-coding analysis average results sheet  Predictive 9%  Time spent on decision-making task typesAverage values on Design Development Meeting  3.7.1.3.  Information sources and representations  A l l design development meetings were held in the architect's offices. Therefore, the architectural stick set was always central to the discussions. In the first two meetings observed, the mechanical consultant had hand-sketched details of the chilled beam and chilled slabs as alternatives to study in the meetings. Copies of these details were distributed among participants. In addition, these details were scanned and deposited on the team's collaboration website, Buzzsaw. Figure 3.12 shows a snapshot of "Chilled beam vs. chilled slabs" details deposited in the C I R S information space on Buzzsaw. HflBD  i  Figure 3.12: A screenshot of the Autodesk Buzzsaw document sharing system; Participants used Buzzsaw as a central repository for documents, sketches, and meeting minutes. Figure 3.13 shows the number of info types, total representation and the average info/task ratio for the three design development meetings. It shows that two types of information are often used in design development meetings: Spatial and Semantic.  Spatial  information is central because design alternatives are the main focus in these meetings and semantic information (e.g., the meeting agenda) is also important because it consists of different types of text-based documents. Overall, the total information types used for these tasks has been 0.67 while 6.33 different information representations has been used on average. This shows that for these types of meeting, information sources are rarely central to decision-making tasks. This is obvious in Feb 08th meeting as it was the first design development meeting and preliminary issues were discussed (the average task/info ratio= 0.19).  54  Total Representations Total Info Types Feb 8th  Average Info/Task ratio  Feb 15th Feb 22nd  Figure 3.13 Total representations, total info types and average info/task ratio in three design development meetings observed.  Table 3.4 provides additional details on the information sources and representation for the Feb 22nd design development meeting as an example. For each information representation, the table shows the description of the information, production type (electronic/paper), referenced or directly used, type of information, and i f the information was electronically integrated with other representations. In this specific meeting, only two information types and five representations were used and none of this information representation was integrated.  55  Table 3.5: Information sources and representation details on Feb 22nd design development meeting observed  Representation Details  Representation  l-  Q.  —  i-  E  -  .2  £  SS  ^  S  «• e  ^  *s  Agenda Architectural Plans/ Views  Name  Description Agenda  W E  Oi - >  D D Stick-Set  E  -  Landscape Plan  Landscape Plan  Architectur al Plans/ Views Landscape Plan Landscape Details Everyone  P P  Landscape Details  &  a  ^  ep  ~§  cuM Semantic eti P A Spatial  N oC Notes N o The Architectural Stick-Set  —  LA  Spatial  No  —  LA  Spatial  No  +  Focus of the landscape discussion  Personal notes P — All .. TJ Other Total Information Types: 2(2D Drawings, Documents) Total Representations: 5 (1 Architectural Stick-Set, 1 Landscape Plan, 1 Landscape Spec, 1 Agenda) A: Architect, P M : Project Manager, L A : Landscape Architect  3.7.2.  V a l u e engineering meetings  Value engineering sessions were held in three consecutive meeting. Based on the results of a draft budget assessment by the construction management team, the total construction cost of the project was over budget by 20%. The value engineering team hired to facilitate the process also arrived at a comparable number. All essential project participants attended the value engineering session with the goal of cutting the cost to the extent possible without diminishing project goals. 3.7.2.1.  T a s k level results  In these meetings, 106 statements have been coded on decision-making tasks per meeting for a meeting duration of 02:44:50. 75.5 out of 106 (70%) are resolved tasks are resolved which has taken 2:02:04 (74%) in average to get resolved. The average outcome of the analysis performed at the task level is presented in figures 3.14. The results demonstrate only 25% of time is spent on predictive and evaluative tasks.  It also shows that  effectiveness rates on descriptive and explanative tasks are much higher than evaluative and predictive tasks (90% on descriptive tasks and 79% on explanative tasks). The values presented in figure 3.14 are relative values to the time spent In particular, effectiveness on predictive tasks is only 39%, which roughly turns to 4% of total meeting time.  45%  50% -, 40% 30%  30% Task Types  20% -  -Productivities  10% 0% Descriptive  Evaluative  Explanative  Predictive  Task Types  Figure 3.14: Average time distribution among different tasks in value engineering meetings, line: Percentage of tasks effective  The frequency of decision-making tasks and their resolution in the April 19th value engineering meeting is presented in Figure 3.15. This figure exemplifies the flow of task  57  types within this meeting over the rear trend-line. As demonstrated, most of the tasks are descriptive and explanative tasks; the trend-line rarely reaches the evaluative and predictive tasks levels. The fore trend-line (dark gray) also demonstrates the rate of resolution with the tasks. Those tasks that are complete, the resolution area has fully covered the task, however if the task needs confirmation only half overlap is shown and for the incomplete tasks, fore trend-line shows no value to the project progress or contribution to the meeting is achieved. The figure also shows that in this meeting most of the tasks are resolved and only on a part of it a series of tasks were not resolved. In this section of the meeting, the construction manager asked questions about the cost and constructability of a bio-wall and the representative of bio-wall did not have enough information to provide him with answers. Here, I exemplify different tasks and information representation best representing value engineering meetings: a) Descriptive task:  At the beginning of one the meetings, the building architect starts the meeting with a description of the current status of the project and the meeting agenda: Meeting is going to start without the owner representatives... construction manager are supposed to publish new cost data on Buzzsaw this morning... New proposal for possible mechanical and electrical cost savings is produced by mechanical consultant, to study possibility of moving part of mechanical systems to the roof and/or sides of the building... we would review budget cutting issued in the first value engineering meeting for board 3 submittal. Consultants to present their analysis and response to budget cut overage of approximately 5 million - based on current construction budget of $21.7 million.  b) Explanative task: Figure 3.16a shows the building architect describing how they have designed the ancillary spaces. He is pointing to the 3D model at the table, explaining the rationale behind the distribution of service zones around the building. He changes the side of the 3D model to allow people get a better view. The cost estimators are standing up behind the architect to align their view with him.  58  Figure 3.15: Distribution of task and task resolution within Apr 19th value engineering meeting (rear trend-line, Task Types: Descriptive, Explanative, Evaluative and Predictive, fore trend-line, task resolutions: Full height= Complete, Zero height= Incomplete, Half- height= Needs confirmations)  c) Evaluative task: In one of the value engineering meetings, the evaluation of wood columns vs. steel columns was discussed: "...Wood structural system for the core building appeared to be competitive with an all steel structural system. Possible reductions of $150,000 may arise out of a more efficient wood structure which would not require the incorporation "moveable"  shear panels."  of  This Task was incomplete and it was agreed that the  Structural Engineer would investigate this option for further cost savings, which may yield an additional $200,000. d) Predictive task: In the third value engineering session, part of the meeting was allocated to presentation of a bio-wall system, which is meant to be incorporated with the air conditioning design. After the digital presentation,  the construction manager  started  asking questions:  "...What-if you put the wall in the middle? How would that affect the structural mechanical  systems? What are the issues associated  locations at the building..."  with moving  and  the wall to other  This task is unfinished as there is no tool to study such a  change with the design, and no proper information is provided to the decision-making team. Therefore, they only come up with an educated guess.  Figure 3.16: Snapshots of value engineering sessions, From Left: (a) Building architect is explaining service zones; (b) Structural Engineer is evaluating the suggested structural systems and (c) Mechanical contractor asks a question on mechanical system, he is pointing to the 3D model, on the other side of the meeting, electrical engineer is browsing the architectural design hung on the wall. 3.7.2.2.  Meeting level results  Decision-making tasks, and information sources and representations utilized in these meetings are analyzed and presented as average results in Figure 3.17. This figure shows  60  the average post-analysis results of the three value engineering meetings observed. The results demonstrate that only 25% of time is spent on predictive and evaluative tasks. It also shows that theeffectiveness rates on descriptive and explanative tasks are much higher than evaluative and predictive tasks. In particular, the effectiveness on predictive tasks is only 39%. The resolution rate is 68% and the resolution productivity is 62%. These values represent that resolution rates on value engineering decision-making tasks on average is lower. One of the reasons is the first value engineering meeting that we observed. In this meeting, budget cutting alternatives were generally discussed and no decision was made. It was agreed that consultants would come up with a list of budget cutting items in a week with a possible cost impact for each. Hence, the resolution has been low in general as the possibility of comparing alternatives and/or predicting changes of the design has been difficult in the meeting.  The full results for all design  development meetings are presented in appendix II.  3.7.2.3.  Information sources and representations  Figure 3.17 shows in value engineering meetings, average info/task for these tasks has been 0.5 while 10 different information representations was utilized.  This shows that  different types of information are used for the value engineering tasks and in half of the cases, information has been referenced. Furthermore, Figure 3.18 shows the number of information types, total representation and the average info/task ratio in three design development meetings. It is seen that in value engineering meetings, a minimum of three and a maximum of seven information types are used. In the first meeting, 13 information representations were used. For instance, in the first value engineering meeting, a full set of architectural drawings stick set was brought to the table. The Value Engineer pulled out six floor plans and hung them on one side of the room, and 4 elevation views were hung on the other wall. The rest of the architectural drawing set was left on the table. A s there was not enough room to put the floor plans, some of these sketches  were  overlapping, reducing the visibility and usability. There were some documents that were shared among all of the attendees (e.g., value engineering consultants and construction management  team had two sets of cost estimations based on their draft  budget  assessments). The head value engineer and construction manager distributed their photocopied documents to all the participants.  61  Meeting Productivity Total Time Resolution Rate: Resolution Productivity Average Info/Task Ratio Total Representations Total Info. Types Descriptive Time Spent 00:49:20 % Time 30% # 30 % Total 28% # Resolved 27.3 % Total 91% Res Task Time 00:43:32 % Res Task Time 88% Task Effectiveness 90%  71% 02:44:50 hh:mm:ss 68% 62% 0.50 10 5 Evaluative Explanative 00:26:10 01:14:42 16% 45% 24 36 22% 34% 14.2 26.5 60% 74% 00:11:10 01:02:33 84% 43% 51%  Evaluative  16%  Predictive 00:14:38 9% 17 16% 7.8 46% 00:04:49 33%  79%  Figure 3.17: Value engineering meeting post-coding analysis average results sheet  39%  Time spent on decision-making task typesAverage values on Value Engineering Meeting  14.00 12.00 10.00  Total Representations Total Info Types  Average Infofrask ratio Apr 19th  Figure 3.18 Total representations, total info types and average info/task ratio in three value-engineering meetings observed.  The attendees sitting at the back row had no access to see the information that was on the table. A l l the value engineering team, construction management and contractor teams plus project manager had their calculators on the table. The CIRS project visionary was not attending the meeting; therefore, he was reached over the phone. There was a small whiteboard near to six of the sketches on the wall, which value engineer uses to write down project goals that help to better perform the value engineering tasks in hand. 8.8% of the meeting time (15min) attendees spend to set up the meeting with the information representations.  In this meeting after 31% of time, a 3D physical mock-up model was  brought to the table to provide a better view of the building components and facilitate the discussion. In this meeting, no specific decision was made, and the average info/task ratio was low (0.16). In the meetings afterward, information has been much more central to the decision-making discussions, and specifically in Apr 12 meeting, the info/task th  ratio increased to  1.15.  Table 3.6 demonstrates the information sources and  representations used in the first meeting as an instance of the representations brought to value engineering meetings. Again, no information was yet integrated but the high number of information sources shows dependency of value engineering discussions on representations of information. It also shows that spatial and cost information are more central in value engineering meetings.  63  Table 3.6: Information representation/documentation details on first value engineering Session observed Representation Details 1-  CU  —  5  "O  -O  o «  a» g  o Cu  CS  3 L  f.  S T3  <M  1  Representation  2D C A D Drawings 2D C A D Drawings Cost Info  Cost Info  Spec  1  3D Mock-Up Model Other  Name  Description  D D Sections /Plans D D Sections /Plans Budget Assessment 2*2 option Budget Assessment 2*2 option  Architectural Drawings Architectural r-. • Drawings  / r i 1  W  Otf ^  A  E  „ E  -  S|  a  c. Notes No  . A  S atial " „ . . Spatial  f  r  No  X T  Tables  E  -  C  Quantitative  No  Tables/ Chart  E  —  VE  Quantitative  No  details ' '  Hand Sketches  P  —  SE  Spatial  No  3D model  Architectural 3D model  11  3  Contract  Project .... Milestones  N  /  _  ^^ ' other wall a n S0  n  m  e  e  t  m  8  r  o  o  m  w a  Personal, not used in group activities  . —  C  Semantic  No  " - - 6 Sections /Details on  ,„ . , „ The Architectural Stick-Set  ^  A  . A E  U  Project Milestones J  Personal ... Everyone P All U notes Total Information Types: 5(2D Drawings, 3D Model, Cost Information (Table and Chart), Contract) Total Representations: 14 (6 Plans, 4 Section/Views, 1 3D model, 1 Architectural Stick-Set, 1 Spec, 1 Project Contract) A: Architect, C : Construction Manager, V E : Value Engineering Consultant, SE: Structural Engineer  3.7.3.  Scheduling meetings  During observational study of CIRS design development and coordination meetings, we attended two scheduling meetings  dedicated to clarify  design and construction  milestones. The construction manager stated the urgent need for a scheduling meeting to align all consultant and contractors' goals with the project goals to facilitate the design process and withstand possible delays. 3.7.3.1. Task level results In scheduling meetings, the main focus was the schedule which was located on the wall or the board. In these meetings, 116 statements have been coded on decision-making task per meeting with a duration of 02:34:51. 100.3 out of 116 (80%) are resolved tasks (79%) which has taken 2:16:30 on average to get resolved. The average outcome of the analysis performed at the task level is presented in Figure 3.19. The results demonstrate only 18% of time is spent on predictive and evaluative tasks. It also shows that effectiveness rates on descriptive and explanative tasks are almost maximum possible (96% on descriptive and 88% on explanative tasks). The effectiveness of evaluative and predictive tasks was 68%, which is higher than other types of meetings (The values presented in figure 3.19 are relative values to the total time spent on each task type).  50% -, 40%  44%  38%  30%  Task Types  20%  - Productivities  10% | 3%  0% Descriptive  Evaluative  Explanative  Predictive  Task Types  Figure 3.19: Average time distribution among different tasks in value engineering meetings, line: Percentage of tasks effective  The occurrence of decision-making tasks and their resolution in the Apr 26 meeting is lh  shown in Figure 3.20. This figure exemplifies the flow of task types within a scheduling  65  meeting over the rear trend-line (light gray). As shown, most of the tasks are descriptive and explanative tasks; the trend-line rarely reaches the evaluative and predictive tasks levels. The figure also shows that in this meeting most of the tasks are resolved and only on a part of it a series of tasks were not resolved. In this specific meeting, the meeting productivity has been 91%, which is one of the most successful meetings we observed. Tasks best exemplifying the scheduling process are as follow: 1. Descriptive task: The construction manager questions the building architect on the time needed for design development permit. 3 to 4 months is what the building architect thinks would be appropriate for them to finalize the permit. 2. Explanative task: The construction manager explains design schedule based on the schedule on the wall. Table 3.7 shows this example from our coded notes.  Start Time Finish Time  Table 3.7: An example of detailed coding on a predictive task in a scheduling meeting Subject  Discussion/ Utterance Type  o  22:33.1  21:43.1  o  Task Duration  0:00:50 C M  the design for the below grade cabling has to be done before the milestone that is shown  EX  Info. Ref  T  Info. Complexity  Task Completi on  Comments  1 C  3. Evaluative task: In the second scheduling meeting, the owner representative mentioned that from their viewpoint, the decision is whether to stop the design or to first resolve the permit issue. It was asked from the consultant to show if it is necessary for this project to spend this money on the design, "...obviously there is lots of stuff that are studied and rejected. There are lots of resistance on the project with the changes and there's a quick jump on these alternatives with the nature of the project, but we are very frustrated with the sketchy drawings that we see and the money that is spent..." The project visionary evaluated the escalation on construction vs. the money spent on the design. 4. Predictive Task: Project manager discussed using the schedule: "...what-if the design charrette affects structural and architectural design? It is discussed that it would delay the whole project, which consequently affects board approval, and structural consultants would crash and extraordinary money for the design would be spent then." Figure 3.21 shows snapshots of scheduling meetings observed.  66  Meeting time (mm:ss.O)  Figure 3.20: Distribution of task and task resolution within Apr 19th value engineering meeting (rear trend-line, Task Types: Descriptive, Explanative, Evaluative and Predictive, fore trend-line, task resolutions: Full height= Complete, Zero height= Incomplete, Half- height= Needs confirmations)  Figure 3.21: Snapshots of two scheduling meetings, From Left: (a) Construction Manager is putting the milestones previously created on the schedule sheet at project management firm's boardroom workspace; (b) The second updated design development schedule created by the construction manager at on small boardroom at the architect's office; and (c) owner representatives, consultants and contractors attending the scheduling meeting; a copy of current schedule is distributed among all.  3.7.3.2. M e e t i n g level results Figure3.22 presents the average coding results on scheduling meetings. Our observations show that most of the time at these meetings is spent on describing and explaining the rationale behind the schedule while only 18% of time is spent on evaluating two design activities or predicting the change on a dependency between activities. The effectiveness on predictive tasks is 69%, which is higher than other meeting types. The resolution rate is 80% and the resolution productivity is 81%. These values represent that resolution rates on scheduling decision-making tasks on average is very high. One of the reasons is the teams had a type of information representation tool (i.e. a sticky-note and a wall paper in one meeting and a whiteboard in the other) that allowed them to study alternatives and predict changes by moving the stick notes or re-drawing activities, and there was also a lot of pressure to make a decision quickly. The results for all scheduling meetings are presented in Appendix II. 3.7.3.3. Information sources a n d representations Figure 3.23 shows in scheduling meetings, the average info/task ratios for these tasks has been 0.68. In one meeting, 9 information representations and 2 info types were utilized which shows the reference and focus on information is high in these meetings. It is mostly because the schedule has been the focus on most of the scheduling decisionmaking tasks.  68  Meeting Productivity Total Time Resolution Rate: Resolution Productivity Average Info/Task Ratio Total Representations Total Info. Types Descriptive Time Spent 00:58:46 % Time 38% # 42 % Total 36% # Resolved 39.0 % Total 94% Res Task Time 00:57:23 % Res Task Time 98% Task Effectiveness 96%  80% 02:34:51 80% 81% 0.68 6 3 Evaluative 00:06:37 4% 5 4% 3.3 65% 00:04:39 70% 68%  hh:mm:ss  Explanative  Descriptive |  44%  Explanative 01:08:16 44% 52 45% 45.5 88% 01:00:26 89%  Predictive 00:21:12 14% 18 15% 12.5 71% 00:14:03 66%  88%  69%  Figure 3.22: Scheduling meeting post-coding analysis average results sheet  Time spent on decision-making task typesAverage Values on Scheduling Meetings  38%  Apr 26th  Figure 3.23 Total representations, total info types and average info/task ratio in two scheduling meetings observed.  As an instance, in the first scheduling meeting, we observed the construction manager had put a blank scheduling sheet on the wall. In the meeting, it was asked why dates are not shown and the construction manager emphasized that this has been done deliberately to not influence the decisions based on actual dates. The construction manager had provided sticky notes as milestones. With the progress of the schedule, some new milestones were also created. The second scheduling meeting was held 3 months after in the architectural firm, and a whiteboard was used for documenting the schedule. Therefore, re-drawing in this meeting was significant. Everyone was provided with a set of schedules that the construction manager created before the meeting, which was supposed to help in following the schedule. However at the end of the meeting, a picture was taken of the schedule to simplify the post-meeting process as no one had correctly transcribed the schedule from the board (Figure 24-c).  70  Figure 3.24: Snapshots of two scheduling meetings; From Left: (a) Construction Manager is putting the milestones previously created on the schedule sheet at project management firm's boardroom workspace; (b) The second updated design development schedule created by the construction manager at on small boardroom at the architect's office; and (c) owner representatives, consultants and contractors attending the scheduling meeting; a copy of current schedule is distributed among all. 3.7.4. 3.7.4.1.  O v e r v i e w o f all design development a n d coordination meetings T a s k level results  Figure 3.25 shows the task-time distribution in all of the meetings we have observed. It is evident that most of the time is spent on describing and explaining the design. In other words, AEC teams go to meetings to study the "How" and "What" of the other teams design. Less time is spent on evaluative and predictive tasks, as these tasks are not easy to answer within the meeting. Figure 3.26 shows the effectiveness rates on all decision-making tasks within the different meetings. It is observed that evaluative and predictive tasks need more support as these tasks have significantly lower resolution rates.  The figure also shows that  effectiveness values are less in value engineering meetings in comparison to design development and scheduling meetings, which illustrates the need for more support in these meetings.  71  Explanative Predictive  Figure 3.25: The typology of time spent of decision-making tasks on CIRS design development, scheduling and value engineering meetings.  Predictive  Figure 3.26 Effectiveness of decision-making tasks on CIRS design development, scheduling and value engineering meetings.  72  3.7.4.2.  Meeting productivity, resolution rate and productivity  Figure 3.27 shows the change of meeting productivity, resolution rate and productivity as the project progresses. Some of the key findings are: 1. For the value engineering meeting observed, it is evident that as more meetings are held, the resolution rates are increased. However, to achieve desirable resolution rates, significant time has elapsed. The consultants are often asked to perform tasks after meetings and provide the team with the results in the following meeting. This has caused lost time and opportunity to reach resolutions at the meeting, and hence the design development and coordination process is lengthened. 2. For scheduling meetings, the team was provided with sufficient information representation (the posting notes wallpaper and the whiteboard to draw) and productivity and resolution rates were significantly higher in these meetings. However, documentation was still a problem. At the second scheduling meeting, no one left the meeting with a correct schedule in hand and only a picture of the drawing on the whiteboard which was later changed to a digital schedule and shared among the team members involved with the project. 3. For value engineering meetings, the significant amount of cost over-budget caused the productivity and resolution rate to be very low. Many tasks were given to the team to find alternatives and study possibilities in cutting the budget. At the first meeting, most tasks were not resolved. The team agreed to wait for the next meeting to have a set of proposals and recommendations to bring back the cost to the target level. In reality, it took three meetings to make the necessary budget reductions.  4. Information representations and sources Figure 3.8 shows information representations and sources used in different meetings observed. It is seen that in the design development meetings almost all different types of information has been used in the meeting. In contrast, in the value engineering meetings, the 3D physical model was present and different representations were used to facilitate the workflow. In addition in these meeting, cost information and possible budget-cutting lists were essential to the discussions observed. In scheduling meetings, most of the focus  73  was on the schedule itself. Only in the first scheduling meeting observed, every design team had a specific design development schedule that they all brought to the meeting but on the second meeting observed, only one general schedule was created by the construction management team and discussed with all the meeting participants.  74  Design Development Meetings  S c h e d u l i n g Meetings  Value Engineering A n a l y s i s Last Value Engineering, all budgeting cuts are agreed.  50% 40%  First Value Engineering Meeting, No decision was made because of the huge over-budget, all the task were given to teams to follow up on.  u  Q<  Meeting dates  CL <  — M e e t i n g Productivity - » - Resolution Rates —k- Resolution Productivity  3.27: The meeting resolution metrics (meeting productivity, resolution rates and resolution productivity) within CIRS design development, scheduling and value engineering sessions.  Table 3.8 I n f o r m a t i o n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a n d s o u r c e s i n d i f f e r e n t m e e t i n g s o b s e r v e d .  jiffiiIaM«3fiS. Design Development Meetings Feb 08th 2D  Plans  1  Sections  3 1  Stick-Set Virtual  p.  Apr 05th  Apr 12th  6  4  1  " --" "  Apr 19th  Feb 01st  Apr 26th  1  4 1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1 j  3 1 1  -  1 1 1  1  Specs PPT Intro Presentation Agenda/Personal Notes  1  1  Physical  Schedule  1  Feb 22nd  Scheduling  .  Cost Contract/PM Doc  Feb 15th  Value Engineering Meetings  4 1  1  2  2  3  2 i' +  +  + A g e n d a w a s a v a i l a b l e i n the m e e t i n g a n d a l m o s t e v e r y o n e h a d p e r s o n a l notes  +  +  +  +  +  +  3.8.  Initial requirements of interactive workspace  Based on our naturalistic observations and coding analysis results, we identified the following set of requirements and functionalities for interactive workspaces: 1.  Make shared information persistently accessible to all members of the group  Shared documents, such as architectural plans, were usually placed in the center of the table. When the diagrams were central to the discussion, people gathered around them and often pointed or gestured over the diagrams simultaneously. Moreover, when the discussion diverged from the documents to other topics, the documents were left in place, where they could still be seen by most participants. People then frequently referred back to the document content by simply pointing. These observations suggest that a tabletop display may be beneficial. Furthermore, if these documents had been closed or placed at a distance, we expect people would not have expended the effort to access them for such quick references. Thus, persistence should be maintained wherever possible to ensure that information will be used effectively during meetings (e.g., by turning off screen savers on shared displays). 2.  Support erasable annotation via direct input  Pointing and gesturing towards shared documents was very common. People also made explicit drawing-like actions over diagrams, usually without actually making marks on the paper. In at least one instance, participants wrote on blank tracing paper placed over the diagram instead of on the diagram itself. We conjecture that annotating diagrams could be very useful if it could be done without permanently changing the master copy. Such annotation should be done through direct input (e.g. pen or finger interaction directly on the diagram) because direct interaction allows people to seamlessly switch between annotation, pointing, and gesturing. Direct input can also serve to attract attention and emphasize ideas in addition to creating the actual marks on the page. Technologies such as SMART Boards enable these interaction techniques. 3.  Support individual activities without interfering with group activity  Individual activities were common and important during group meetings. Often individuals needed to view, manipulate, or annotate artifacts (e.g. paper or electronic documents) without distracting the rest of the group from their discussion. These artifacts  77  sometimes belonged to the individual, but other times were artifacts shared by the group, which were not currently in use. For example, a person might take a document from the center of the table to take a closer look at an artifact that was previously discussed. People also manipulated shared documents in preparation for later use. For example, an architect might flip through a large collection of architectural drawings to display the one most relevant to the current discussion in case it was useful as a reference. Similarly, during the scheduling meeting, the moderator placed several milestones on a shared timeline while the discussion diverged to other topics in preparation of discussing those milestones later (Figure 3). We believe these types of activities need to be possible without distracting other members of the group because they were central to the workflow of the design meetings we observed. We also observed that simultaneous access to personal copies of the same information could be helpful. When photocopies of a document were handed out, people often browsed or annotated their personal copy during discussion. We believe that Tablet PCs with easy access to shared information could provide support for these individual activities  4.  Support subgroup activities  Subgroup activities were just as important as individual activities during meetings. These included whispering to a neighbor, holding a side conversation with a few people, and sharing documents with a small group. The mobility of paper documents facilitated subgroup activities in these meetings. For example, paper documents frequently moved to the center of a group activity, allowing the document to be viewed by that group separately from other subgroups. In addition, pointing to a paper document or moving it toward someone could get their attention without distracting the group as a whole. These observations suggest that mobile computing technology (Tablet PCs, PDAs) might be useful in supporting subgroup activities in an interactive workspace.  5.  Provide very simple means for transferring information to shared displays  Our observations suggest that moving information from personal devices to shared displays needs to be trivial (e.g., through removable USB drives or a common data repository accessible from all computers). For example, we found that some participants would prefer to share information on smaller displays instead of displaying them on a larger display because it did not break the flow of their current activity. In one meeting a  78  participant turned his laptop around to share some information with the group even though there was a data projector plugged in at the other end of the table (Figure 3). This solution left some participants unable to see the screen. Furthermore, it was difficult for the owner to interact with his computer. In addition to requiring little effort on the part of participants, information transfer mechanisms need to be available to any participant on demand during the meeting. Participants often discussed topics that were not on the agenda, and therefore could not always predict prior to the meeting exactly what information would be needed.  6.  Maintain support for traditional artifacts  Although we believe that computer support is valuable for many aspects of design coordination activities, we do not believe that traditional artifacts (e.g. paper and physical models) can be replaced entirely. Some tasks may be better done on paper because of its ability to support very flexible interactions. Given the nature of these meetings, it is reasonable to expect that meeting participants will continue to bring a wealth of information to the meetings. Some of this information may only be available, or may be more readily accessible, in non-digital form. A successful interactive workspace should provide physical space for traditional artifacts and should support their use in conjunction with digital media.  7.  Make spatial relationships between different diagrams easy to see  With paper documents, meeting participants often spend time comparing two or more diagrams to understand how they were spatially related. We observed one instance where participants could not determine whether the two diagrams depicted the same building site because there was no explicit connection between the diagrams. Providing explicit cues to make spatial relationships clear (e.g., by automatically rotating diagrams of the same area to the same orientation and overlaying them) could reduce time spent on such comparisons and improve meeting productivity. Liston et al.  (2000) also recognized the  need to interact with and visually communicate critical relationships between project information.  79  8.  Make properties of the building design clear and easily accessible  Design details such as 3D structures and material properties of objects are not clear from printouts of 2D design drawings. Our observations revealed that participants spent substantial time explaining the 3D nature of structures using hand gestures and clarifying other aspects of the design (e.g. that a particular wall was to be made of glass). Digital media, including 3D modeling and the use of color, can make such information more accessible. Liston et al. (2000) also cited the need to interact with different kinds of project information and make group appropriate views of project information available to all participants.  9.  Support predictive tasks and improve the quality of prediction  This is essential to study the cost impact of changing design and spatial elements within the building. These tasks are often discussed without having the problems solved at the meeting, e.g. in the first meeting, electrical engineer suggested that they would move the electrical generator outside of the building to put it beside the electrical transformer, so basement space needed for the generator would be lessened, program functionality would be kept and overall cost would be minimized. After another meeting in two weeks, he came back and mentioned that they can not proceed with this option as the price of cabling would go higher, and meanwhile the architects had come back with a lower height for the basement to reduce the cost. Now they have to go back to the early height as the generator should go back to its original place in the basement. These kinds of impacts on overall project cost could not be studied at the meeting so they suggested that they agree upon the change and they have returned with the cost savings but the prediction was inaccurate and inefficient.  10. Support Post-meeting Documentation Although all of the information used in the meeting is generated electronically. Not only when it comes it turns to paper, but also a image of these information is posted on Buzzsaw and specifically in one of the meetings, as there was a difference between image details posted on Buzzsaw, a revision was uploaded a day after.  In addition, another  situation was observed that participants in the meetings did not document all the cost savings discussed and each team only focused on their proportion on the total project  80  cost.  Construction manager had followed the changes and he promised to post the  savings to Buzzsaw the same day to expedite the post design changes but after two days a PDF of the spreadsheet was uploaded.  3.9. Conclusions and future work As part of a longer-term research project, we have presented and discussed the results of an observational field study of collaborative decision-making on design development meetings. This study provides a thorough understanding of the existing process and how the various participants in different types of meetings spend their time performing decision-making tasks and using information to support their tasks. We have also measured the effectiveness of these tasks and the overall productivity of the meetings. Although it is believed that computer support is valuable for many aspects of design coordination activities, we do not believe that traditional paper and physical models can be replaced entirely. Some tasks may be better performed on paper because of its ability to support very flexible interactions. Given the nature of these meetings, it is reasonable to expect that meeting participants will continue to bring a wealth of information to the meetings. Some of this information may only be available, or may be more readily accessible, in non-digital form. A successful interactive workspace should provide physical space for traditional information representations and should support their use in conjunction with digital media. Based on the results of our observational work, a list of features required for an interactive workspace to support specific decisionmaking tasks in each type of design coordination meetings is also provided. In general, we found that collaboration technology facilitating digital annotations, digital records of meetings, and digital overlays of schematic diagrams could be of potential use in future collaborative decision-making activities specifically evaluative and predictive tasks. Currently the project team meetings have moved to the interactive workspace installed at the architectural firm's office. The next step in our research would be to observe any change in performance metrics on these meetings in this digital environment, particularly as the 3D models are further developed.  Once the project goes to the  construction phase, we will deploy the interactive workspace to the site to facilitate  81  construction with the virtual models generated and study the effects of the technology on our performance metrics and the overall project.  3.10. References Active Spaces Project, http://gaia.cs.uiuc.edu, last visited on Dec 2005 Ambiente Project, German's National Research Center for Information Technology (GMD)'s i-Land, http://www.darmstadt.gmd.de/ambiente/i-land.html. Autodesk Buzzsaw. http://www.autodesk.com/buzzsaw/. Christiansson, P., Da Dalto, L . , Skjaerbaek, J. O., Soubra, S., and Marache, M . (2002). "Virtual environments for the A E C sector: The Divercity experience". Proc. of the European Conference of Product and Process Modeling, eWork, and eBusiness in A E C , Portoroz, Slovenia, pp. 49-55. Dennis, A. R. and T. A. Carte (1998). "Using Geographical Information Systems for Decision Making: Extending Cognitive Fit Theory to Map-Based Presentations" Information Systems Research, Vol.9, No.2, pp. 194-203. Easy living, vision Group at Microsoft, http://research.microsoft.com/easyliving/, visited on Dec 2005.  last  E-world laboratory, University of South Australia, http://e-world.unisa.edu.au/, visited on Dec 2005.  last  Fischer, M . , Liston, K. and Kunz, J. (2000a). "Requirements and Benefits of Interactive Workspaces in Construction", Proc. of 8th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Stanford University, C A Fischer, M . , Liston, K., and Kunz, J. (2000b). "Requirements and benefits of interactive workspaces in construction". Proc. of the 8th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Stanford University, CA. Fischer, M . , Stone, M . , Liston, K., Kunz, J., and Singhal, V. (2002). "Multi-stakeholder collaboration: The CIFE iRoom". Proc. of the CIB W78 Conference, Distributing Knowledge in Building, Aarhus, Denmark. Fox A., Johanson B., Hanrahan P. and Winograd T. (2000). "Integrating information appliances into an Interactive Workspace",. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 20(3), pp. 54-65. Golparvar Fard, M . , Staub-French, S., Po, B. A., and Tory, M . (2006). "Requirements for a Mobile Interactive Workspace to Support Design Development and Coordination". In Proc of the Joint Int Conference on Computing and Decision Making in Civil and Building Engineering (ICCCBEXI 2006), pp. 3587-3596. Interactive Workspace Laboratorium, University of Aarhus and Danish Center for Pervasive Computing, http://www.daimi.au.dk/ispace/, last visit Dec 2005.  82  Issa, M . H . , Rankin, J.H., and Christian, A.J. (2006) "A Framework to Assess the Collaborative Decision Making Process in Interactive Workspaces", In Proceedings of the Joint International Conference on Computing and Decision Making in Civil and Building Engineering (ICCCBEXI 2006), pp. 2720-2729. Izadi, S., Brignull, H . , Rodden, T., Rogers, Y., and Underwood, M . (2003) "Dynamo: A public interactive surface supporting the cooperative sharing and exchange of media". Proc. of the A C M Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, A C M Press, New York, N Y , pp. 159-168. Jarvenpaa, S. L . and G. W. Dickson (1988). "Graphics and managerial decision making: research-based guidelines." Communications of the A C M . A C M Press, New York, NY. Vol. 31, No. 6. Johanson, B. and Fox, A. (2004). "Extending tuplespaces for coordination in interactive workspaces", Journal of Systems and Software, Vol.69, No. 3, pp.243-266. Johanson, B., Fox, A., and Winograd, T. (2002). "The interactive workspaces project: Experiences with ubiquitous computing rooms". In IEEE Pervasive Computing Magazine Vol. 1, No.2, pp. 71-78. Kam, C , Fischer, M . , Hanninen, R., Karjalainen, A., and Laitinen, J. (2003) "The product model and fourth dimension product". ITcon Vol. 8, Special Issue IFC - Product models for the A E C arena, pp. 137-166, http://www.itcon.org/2003/12 Khanzode, A., Fischer, M . , and Reed, D. (2005). "Case study of the implementation of the Lean Project Delivery System (LPDS) using virtual building technologies on a large health care project". Proc. of IBLC-13, Sydney, Australia, pp.143-150. Kunz, J., Fischer, M . , Liston, K., Singhal, V., and Stone, M . (2002) "Virtual design and construction in the CIFE iRoom". Proc. of the 3rd Int Conference on DecisionMaking in Urban and Civil Engineering, London, England. Liston, K., Fischer, M . and Kunz, J. (2000). "Designing and Evaluating Visualization Techniques for Construction Planning", The 8th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Stanford University, C A , U S A Liston, K., Fischer, M . and Winograd, T. (2001). "Focused Sharing of Information for Multidisciplinary Decision Making by Project Teams", ITcon Vol. 6, pp. 69-82, http://www.itcon.Org/2001/6 Liston, K. (2001). Thesis proposal, Unpublished manuscript, 2001. Messner, J., Riley, D. and Horman, M . (2005). "An Interactive Visualization Environment for Construction Engineering Education", Proc. of Construction Research Congress, San Diego, CA. MIT Intelligent Room Project, http://aire.csail.mit.edu/ , visited on Dec 2005 McGrath, J. E . (1984). "Typology of tasks". In Groups: Interaction and Prentice-Hall, pp. 60-66.  Performance.  Newell, A. and H . A . Simon (1972). "Human Problem Solving". Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall.  83  Norbert A. Streitz, Jorg GeiBler, Torsten Holmer, Shinichi Konomi, Christian MiillerTomfelde,Wolfgang Reischl, Petra Rexroth, Peter Seitz and Ralf Steinmetz (1999), i-LAND: An interactive Landscape for Creativity and Innovation, Proceedings of the A C M Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'99), Pittsburgh, PA, U.S.A., pp. 120-127 North, C. and B. Schneiderman (1999). "Snap-Together Visualization: Evaluating Coordination Usage and Construction", Univ. of Maryland CS Dept. Olson, G. M . and Olson, J. S. (1997). "Research on computer supported cooperative work", In Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, 2 Ed, Elsevier Science, pp. 1433-1456. nd  Pedersen, E. R., McCall, K., Moran, T. P., and Halasz, F. G. (1993) "Tivoli: An electronic whiteboard for informal workgroup meetings". Proc. of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '93), A C M Press, New York, N Y , pp. 391-398. Preece, J., et al. (1996). "Human-Computer Interaction". Harlow, England, AddisonWesley. Rankin J., Issa M . and Christian, A.J. (2006). "Exploring the Principles of Interactive Collaborative Workspaces", 1st International Construction Specialty Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, May 23-26, 2006, CT-092, pp. 1-10. Sawyer, T. (2005). "3-D Imaging, Maturing Visualization Tools Make Ideas Look Real", e-construction, Mc-Graw Hill Construction Publications, http://enr.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0271 -18890JTM Schreyer M . , Hartmann T., and Fischer M . (2005). "Supporting Project Meetings with Concurrent Inter-operability in a Construction Information Workspace", ITcon Vol. 10, pg. 153-167, http://www.itcon.org/2005/12 Sebrechts, M . M . , et al. (1999). "Visualization of Search Results: A Comparative Evaluation of Text, 2D, and 3D Interfaces". 22nd annual intl A C M SIGIR conf on Research and development in information retrieval, Berkeley, C A USA, A C M . Sellen, A. J., and Harper, R. H. R. (2002). "The Myth of the Paperless Office". MIT Press, Cambridge, M A , 2002. Smelcer, J. B. and E . Carmel (1994). "Do Geographic Information Systems Improve Decision Making". Washington, D.C., Kogod College of Business Administration, The American University. Staub-French, S. and Fischer, M . (2001). "Industrial case study of electronic design, cost, and schedule integration", Technical Report No. 122, CIFE, Stanford University. Stevens, G. and Wulf, V. (2002). "A new dimension in access control: Studying maintenance engineering across organizational boundaries". Proc. of A C M Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, N Y , pp. 196-205. Streitz, N., Geissler, J., and Holmer, T. (1998). "Roomware for cooperative buildings: Integrated design of architectural spaces and information spaces". Proc. of CoBuild'98, pp. 4-21.  84  Suwa, M . and Tversky, B. (1996). "What architects see in their sketches: Implications for design tools". In Companion Proc. of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '96), A C M Press, New York, NY, pp. 191-192. Underkoffler, J. and Ishii, I. (1999). "Urp: A Luminous-tangible workbench for urban planning and design". Proc. of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '99), A C M Press, New York, N Y , pp.386-393. Vernik, R., Blackburn, T. and Bright, D., (2003). "Extending Interactive Intelligent Workspace Architectures with Enterprise Services". Proc. of Evolve2003, Enterprise Information Integration, Sydney, Australia. Vessey, I. (1991). "Cognitive Fit: Theory-Based Analyses of Graphs Versus Tables Literature." Decision Sciences, Vol. 22, No.l, pp.219-241. Wang, X. and Dunston P. (2005). "Heavy Equipment Operator Training via Virtual Modeling Technologies", Proc of Construction Research Congress, CA. Wildemuth B. et al. (2002) "Alternative Surrogates for Video Objects in a Digital Library: Users' Perspectives on Their Relative Usability", Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol.2458, pp. 493 - 507.  85  CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKS 4.1 Summary Building design  is a complex  multi-disciplinary process  that requires extensive  collaboration to develop a coordinated design that satisfies the functional, aesthetic, and economic requirements of the owner. Recently, 3 D design tools are gaining acceptance and providing significant benefits to the design coordination process. remains unclear as to how such tools can be incorporated effectively  However, it into digital  interactive workspaces to support 3 D design coordination. Before deploying any digital tools to support these meetings, it is imperative to understand the existing coordination meeting process and work practices. To better understand the nature of these meetings and the ways in which digital collaborative technology might be used to support the work practices of those engaged in design development activities, I have conducted a thorough analysis on collaborative decision-making process on CIRS meetings. These research motivations are described in Chapter 1 along with research objective, methodology and thesis overview. This study increases our understanding of design teams and their work practices, and helps us to identify the requirements of effective digital workspace environments. Chapter 2 summarizes an initial list of the requirements identified as we studied different workspaces together. This initial study demonstrated the need for studying collaborative decision-making in order to assess the performance of project teams in design development and coordination meetings. Chapter 3 presents and discusses the results of an observational study of collaborative decision-making on different design development and coordination meetings. This study provides a thorough understanding on existing work practices in the design development process. Three different types of meetings have been studied: traditional design development meetings, value engineering meetings, and scheduling meetings. This research describes how the various participants in these  86  meetings spent their time on decision-making tasks, and calculates the effectiveness of each task type and the meeting productivity. In addition, the type of information sources and representations utilized are also introduced. Based on observations and the results from the coding of these meetings, a list of requirement on how an interactive workspace must support the work practice has been introduced Although it is believed that computer support is valuable for many aspects of design coordination activities, we do not believe that traditional paper and physical models can be replaced entirely. Some tasks may be better done on paper because of its ability to support very flexible interactions. Given the nature of these meetings, it is reasonable to expect that meeting participants will continue to bring a wealth of information to the meetings. Some of this information may only be available, or may be more readily accessible, in non-digital form. A successful interactive workspace should provide physical space for traditional information representations and should support their use in conjunction with digital media. Based on the results of our observational work, we found that collaboration technology facilitating digital annotations, digital records of meetings, and digital overlays of schematic diagrams could be of potential use in future design development activities. Appendix I. shows the detailed analysis on one of the meeting that we have observed. The results of the tasks observed and information representations and sources utilized in the meeting are discussed in detailed.  Appendix II shows all post-coding  results sheets in eight design development meetings I observed. Then on appendix III, the features of current U B C interactive workspace and the mobile interactive workspace are introduced.  4.2 Contributions Contributions resulting from this thesis are: (a) This study increases our understanding of existing work practices with respect to design development and coordination. Specifically, it characterizes how how time is spent on different decision-making tasks, the effectiveness of those tasks, and the types of information representations utilized for performing decision-making tasks.  87  (b) The study performed is a validation of the collaborative decision-making framework first proposed by Liston et al. 2000 and described in Chapter 3. The robustness of the constructs developed to assess collaborative decision-making has been adequately assessed in the eight meetings studied. (c) With this study, the ground for studying interactive workspaces has been stabilised and now the same framework can be applied to assess the benefits of interactive workspaces. In essence, the framework provides the structure and metrics necessary to compare paper-based environments with fully digital interactive workspaces.  4.3  Recommendations on future research  The research in this thesis has lead to several areas for future wok, which are as follow: (a)  To observe  performance measurements  on design  development  coordination meetings as the project team utilizes the interactive workspace.  and  These  results can be compared with the results of my research to evaluate the benefits of interactive workspaces in supporting design development activities. (b)  Once the project goes to the construction phase, we intend to deploy the  interactive workspace to the site to facilitate the construction. The goal is to study and assess the effects of the technology on project performance. (c) To further refine and validate the assessment framework by doing more naturalistic observations. A more comprehensive set of performance metrics for both paper-based and interactive workspace needs to be developed. (d) To incorporate the study performed by computer scientists on the same design development meetings, which focused on the interactions people had with digital and physical artefacts.  88  THESIS BIBLIOGRAPHY Active Spaces Project, http://gaia.cs.uiuc.edu, visited on Dec 2005 Ambiente Project, German's National Research Center for Information Technology (GMD)'s i-Land, http://www.darmstadt.gmd.de/ambiente/i-land.html. Autodesk Buzzsaw. http://www.autodesk.com/buzzsaw/. Christiansson, P., Da Dalto, L . , Skjaerbaek, J. O., Soubra, S., and Marache, M . (2002). "Virtual environments for the A E C sector: The Divercity experience". Proc. of the European Conference of Product and Process Modeling, eWork, and eBusiness in A E C , Portoroz, Slovenia, pp. 49-55. Dennis, A. R. and T. A. Carte (1998). "Using Geographical Information Systems for Decision Making: Extending Cognitive Fit Theory to Map-Based Presentations" Information Systems Research, Vol.9, No.2, pp. 194-203. Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G., and Beale, R. (2004). Groupware, In Human-Computer Interaction, Pearson Prentice Hall, pp. 663-715. Easy living, vision Group at Microsoft, visited on Dec 2005.  http://research.microsoft.com/easyliving/,  last  E-world laboratory, University of South Australia, http://e-world.unisa.edu.au/, visited on Dec 2005.  last  Fischer, M . , Liston, K. and Kunz, J. (2000a). "Requirements and Benefits of Interactive Workspaces in Construction", Proc. of 8th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Stanford University, C A Fischer, M . , Liston, K., and Kunz, J. (2000b). "Requirements and benefits of interactive workspaces in construction". Proc. of the 8th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Stanford University, CA. Fischer, M . , Stone, M . , Liston, K., Kunz, J., and Singhal, V. (2002). "Multi-stakeholder collaboration: The CIFE iRoom". Proc. of the CIB W78 Conference, Distributing Knowledge in Building, Aarhus, Denmark. • Fox A., Johanson B., Hanrahan P. and Winograd T. (2000). "Integrating information appliances into an Interactive Workspace", IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 20(3), pp. 54-65. Golparvar Fard, M . , Staub-French, S., Po, B. A., and Tory, M . (2006). "Requirements for a Mobile Interactive Workspace to Support Design Development and Coordination". In Proceedings of the Joint International Conference on Computing and Decision Making in Civil and Building Engineering (ICCCBEXI 2006), pp. 3587-3596.  89  Interactive Workspace Laboratorium, University of Aarhus and Danish Center for . Pervasive Computing, http://www.daimi.au.dk/ispace/, last visit Dec 2005. Issa, M . H . , Rankin, J.H., and Christian, A.J. (2006) "A Framework to Assess the Collaborative Decision Making Process in Interactive Workspaces", In Proceedings of the Joint international Conference on Computing and Decision Making in Civil and Building Engineering (ICCCBEXI 2006), pp. 2720-2729. Ishii, H . and Kobayashi, M . (1992). "ClearBoard: A seamless medium for shared drawing and conversation with eye contact", Proceedings of the A C M Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 525-532. Izadi, S., Brignull, H., Rodden, T., Rogers, Y., and Underwood, M . (2003). "Dynamo: A public interactive surface supporting the cooperative sharing and exchange of media" Proc. of the 16th Annual A C M Symp. on User Interface Software and Tech, pp. 159168. Jarvenpaa, S. L . and G. W. Dickson (1988). "Graphics and managerial decision making: research-based guidelines." Communications of the A C M . A C M Press, New York, NY. Vol. 31, No. 6. Johanson, B. and Fox, A . (2004). "Extending tuplespaces for coordination in interactive workspaces", Journal of Systems and Software, Vol.69, No. 3, pp.243-266. Johanson, B., Fox, A., and Winograd, T. (2002). "The interactive workspaces project: Experiences with ubiquitous computing rooms". In IEEE Pervasive Computing Magazine Vol. 1, No.2, pp. 71-78. Johanson, B., Fox, A., and Winograd, T. (2002). "The Interactive Workspaces project: Experiences with ubiquitous computing rooms". In IEEE Pervasive Computing, Vol. 1(2), pp. 67-74. Kam, C , Fischer, M . , Hanninen, R., Karjalainen, A., and Laitinen, J. (2003) "The product model and fourth dimension product". ITcon Vol. 8, Special Issue IFC - Product models for the A E C arena, pp. 137-166, http://www.itcon.org/2003/12 Khanzode, A., Fischer, M . , and Reed, D. (2005). "Case study of the implementation of the Lean Project Delivery System (LPDS) using virtual building technologies on a large health care project". Proc. of IBLC-13, Sydney, Australia, pp.143-150. Kunz, J., Fischer, M . , Liston, K., Singhal, V . , and Stone, M . (2002) "Virtual design and construction in the CIFE iRoom". Proc. of the 3rd Int Conference on DecisionMaking in Urban and Civil Engineering, London, England. Liston, K., Fischer, M . and Kunz, J. (2000). "Designing and Evaluating Visualization Techniques for Construction Planning", The 8th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Stanford University, C A , U S A Liston, K., Fischer, M . and Winograd, T. (2001). "Focused Sharing of Information for Multidisciplinary Decision Making by Project Teams", ITcon Vol. 6, pp. 69-82, http://www.itcon.Org/2001/6 Liston, K. (2001). Thesis proposal, Unpublished manuscript, 2001.  90  Liston, K. (2006). Tele conference between U B C and Stanford and a collaborative travel of Liston to U B C . Messner, J., Riley, D. and Horman, M . (2005). "An Interactive Visualization Environment for Construction Engineering Education", Proc. of Construction Research Congress, San Diego, CA. MIT Intelligent Room Project, http://aire.csail.mit.edu/, visited on Dec 2005 McGrath, J. E . (1984). "Typology of tasks". In Groups: Interaction and Performance. Prentice-Hall, pp. 60-66. Newell, A. and H . A. Simon (1972). "Human Problem Solving". Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall. Norbert A. Streitz, Jorg GeiBler, Torsten Holmer, Shinichi Konomi, Christian MiillerTomfelde,Wolfgang Reischl, Petra Rexroth, Peter Seitz and Ralf Steinmetz (1999), i-LAND: An interactive Landscape for Creativity and Innovation, Proceedings of the A C M Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'99), Pittsburgh, PA, U.S.A., pp. 120-127 North, C. and B. Schneiderman (1999). "Snap-Together Visualization: Evaluating Coordination Usage and Construction", University of Maryland Computer Science Dept. Olson, G. M . and Olson, J. S. (1997). "Research on computer supported cooperative work", In Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, 2 Ed, Elsevier Science, pp. 1433-1456. nd  Pedersen, E. R., McCall, K., Moran, T. P., and Halasz, F. G. (1993) "Tivoli: An electronic whiteboard for informal workgroup meetings". Proc. of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '93), A C M Press, New York, N Y , pp. 391-398. Preece, J., et al. (1996). "Human-Computer Interaction". Harlow, England, AddisonWesley. Rankin J., Issa M . and Christian, A.J. (2006). "Exploring the Principles of Interactive Collaborative Workspaces", 1st International Construction Specialty Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, May 23-26, 2006, CT-092, pp. 1-10. Sawyer, T. (2005). "3-D Imaging, Maturing Visualization Tools Make Ideas Look Real", e-construction, Mc-Graw Hill Construction Publications, http://enr.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0271 -18890_ITM Schreyer M . , Hartmann T., and Fischer M . (2005). "Supporting Project Meetings with Concurrent Inter-operability in a Construction Information Workspace", ITcon Vol. 10, pg. 153-167, http://www.itcon.org/2005/12 Sebrechts, M . M . , et al. (1999). "Visualization of Search Results: A Comparative Evaluation of Text, 2D, and 3D Interfaces". 22nd annual intl A C M SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, Berkeley, C A USA, A C M .  91  Sellen, A. J., and Harper, R. H . R. (2002). "The Myth of the Paperless Office". MIT Press, Cambridge, M A , 2002. Smelcer, J. B. and E . Carmel (1994). "Do Geographic Information Systems Improve Decision Making". Washington, D . C , Kogod College of Business Administration, The American University. Staub-French, S. and Fischer, M . (2001). "Industrial case study of electronic design, cost, and schedule integration", Technical Report No. 122, CIFE, Stanford University. Stevens, G. and Wulf, V . (2002). "A new dimension in access control: Studying maintenance engineering across organizational boundaries". Proc. of the A C M Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW 2002), A C M Press, New York, NY, pp. 196-205. Streitz, N., Geissler, J., and Holmer, T. (1998). "Roomware for cooperative buildings: Integrated design of architectural spaces and information spaces". Proc. of CoBuild'98, pp. 4-21. Suwa, M . and Tversky, B. (1996). "What architects see in their sketches: Implications for design tools". In Companion Proc. of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '96), A C M Press, New York, NY, pp. 191-192. Tabesh, R. and Staub-French, S. (2005). "Case Study of Constructability Reasoning in MEP Coordination", Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress, April 5-7, San Diego, CA. Underkoffler, J. and Ishii, I. (1999). "Urp: A Luminous-tangible workbench for urban planning and design". Proc. of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '99), A C M Press, New York, NY, pp.386-393. Vernik, R., Blackburn, T. and Bright, D., (2003). "Extending Interactive Intelligent Workspace Architectures with Enterprise Services". Proc. of Evolve2003, Enterprise Information Integration, Sydney, Australia. Vertegaal, R. (1999). "The G A Z E groupware system: Mediating joint attention in multiparty communication and collaboration". Proceedings of the ACM Conference  on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 294-301. Vessey, I. (1991). "Cignitive Fit: Theory-Based Analyses of Graphs Versus Tables Literature." Decision Sciences, Vol. 22, No.l, pp.219-241. Wang, X. and Dunston P. (2005). "Heavy Equipment Operator Training via Virtual Modeling Technologies", Proc. of Construction Research Congress, San Diego, CA. Wildemuth B. et al. (2002) "Alternative Surrogates for Video Objects in a Digital Library: Users' Perspectives on Their Relative Usability", Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol.2458, pp. 493 - 507.  92  Appendix I: Post-meeting notes - CIRS meeting April 05th  Spring 2006  93  1. Overall Meeting Information •  Number of Participants: • 23 People • John Robinson (Client Rep), Peter Busby (Principle of BPW) and Martin (Head Arch) (Visionary people behind CIRS) and Harley Grusko (3D Arch Designer) are not attending.  •  Meeting Location: BPW Building Architects Office, usual place at the ground floor, not using the iRoom for today's meeting due to the significant number of people attending the meeting  •  Meeting Type: First Value engineering Session to cut project cost by 5 Million CND Date: April 05 , 2006 Recording Type: 0 Video and Audio • Digital Pictures  • •  th  2. Brief of the meeting Preparation •  There is an A2 architectural drawings stick set at the table, The Value Engineer pulled out 6 floor plans and hang on one side of the room and on the other wall of the meeting workspace he is put four elevation views of the building. The rest of the architectural design development sketches are left on the table. As there is not enough room to put the floor plans, some of these sketches (See Figure above) are overlapping, reducing the visibility and usability.  •  There are some documents, which need to be shared among all of the attendees, i.e. Value Engineering Team (Altus Helyar) and Construction Management Team (Stuart Olson) have two sets of cost estimations based on draft budget assessment 2x2  options. Head Value Engineer is asking for 14 photocopies of the cost estimation sheets but more people are attending the meeting. Construction Manager has copies of their documents and he distributes among all. (Number of Copies are less than number of attendees and attendees at the back row have no access to see the information that is shared) •  All the Value Engineering Team (3) and Construction Management team (3 including 2 estimators), M & E contractors (2) plus the Project Manager have their calculators on the table.  •  A key person, John Robinson (Client Rep) is not attending the meeting. The phone reaches him.  •  There is a small whiteboard near to 6 of the sketches on the wall, which Liam (Head Value Engineer) is using to write down the project goals that would help to better achieve Value Engineering.  S  •  After 53 min, a 3D physical mock-up model is brought to the table.  •  More than 10 min takes to get prepared for the meeting; one important set of cost information arrives 15 minutes after the meeting starts.  Figure 1-1. Pictures from the video recorded on April 05th Meeting.  3. Summary of Meeting Analysis T a b l e 1-1. The measurement typology of time spent on certain kinds of decision-making tasks  52% ???* ???*  Meeting Productivity  Meeting Effectiveness Meeting Value Total Time  2:50:15  Resolution Rate:  49%  Resolution Productivity Average Info/Task Total Representations Total Info. Types Descriptive Time Spent 0: 43: 25 % Time 26% # 38  45%  % Total  # Resolved % Total Res Task Time % Res Task Time  hh:mm:ss  Evaluative 10% Descriptive 36%  0.16  14 5 Evaluative  Explanative  Predictive  0: 34: 33 20% 30  1:01:08 36% 73  23%  18%  44%  16%  31 82% 0:29:52 69%  9 30% 0:04:54 14%  51.5 71% 0:48:54 80%  4 15% 00:05:23 17%  Explanative 45%  0: 31: 09 18% 26  Predictive 9%  *Need survey satisfaction results to calculate value as a function of productivity, meeting type, value of tasks, and participant view of meeting • •  Meeting productivity is a function of time spent on tasks that are resolved relative to the overall meeting duration. Meeting effectiveness is a function of relative percentage of time spent on tasks types measured against the team's perceived focus and goal of the meeting. This requires the team to fill out the survey.  •  Meeting value is a function of effectiveness, productivity, and value of task types relative to the team's goals for the meeting.  •  Resolution Rate is the number of tasks resolved relative to the total number of tasks, measured in quantity.  •  Resolution Productivity is the duration of tasks resolved relative to the total duration of tasks.  Table 1.2. Matrix for Defining Task by Relationship Type Form/  Temporal  Spatial  Quantitative  Symbolic  Type Temporal Chart 2D 3D  Physical  r,- if.  3D Virtual Model 4D Text Diagram Symbol  iRiIRi  Chart Table  ^^^^^^^^^^^  16:40 fC'osli 26:16  + Measurable times spent using certain kinds of information  Semantic  4. Details Analysis Discussion  3& c  P M Begins the meeting PM  CM  CM  VE  CM  C M : U B C PT challenged them to switch from motorized to manual dampers damp. Stuart Olson doesn't believe it has happened. The value of shading on the exterior has not also been considered. Change to cast-in-place concrete has not happened. Standard slab has not yet happened. General Mechanical saving has not happened. They have not done the demand that was expected form them. Ron think he's roughly in coincidence with Value Eng Numbers C M : The comparable number arrived at by Altus Helyar is $26,122,781, as showed the comparison table prepared by A C . (these tables are attached to the Minutes posted on Buzzsaw) C M : Considering the more conservative number and taking into account, that U B C PT's target cost for construction for Board 3 is $21,750,000; the project is $5,773,085 over budget. The august 2005-target cost for construction for Board 2 was $20,409,497, which means that through budget allocations and the release of some project contingency, the construction budget increased by $1,340,503. Start with Ron: Cost Analysis: +6M $ plus the project estimation. He indicated that we collectively have not met the demands that were agreed to in August 2005- we are "extremely" over budget. Liam Murray (V/A) pointed out that the variance in estimated cost between Altus Helyar and Stuart Olson is insignificant immaterial in the bid scheme of things.  ca O  H U  Comments  The introduction of people around the table is not captured as a task related to the meeting.  D Ron McFee from Stuart Olson explains the results of costing exercise based on "draft Budget Assessment 2x2 Option" dated March 31. The total Construction cost of the project is estimated at $27,523,085, including general conditions and the C M fee, for a total building area of 67,376 sqft.  £ u  D  Cost Info  D  Cost Info  D  Cost Info  D  Cost Info  The copies are not yet ready! 15 min is passed!  in  CN CN <N  —*  O  ON ON  o  ow  A l from U B C PT (Client) says that the cost is $42m with $3m for contingency which means it's 630$/sf. U B C PT thinks this is not a number that they can value engineer out! D They are hard pressed out to see how they would do the V / A ? Does anyone believe that this can be V / A out? Can you do the surgery to the building? It's left to the designers to do that. Liam says the building is like an apple tree, as harder as you shack it, you get more out of it. Four areas that they can touch: areas, skin, exterior and  Cost Info  1  Y  Visualization: Liam is pointing to the plans and elevations at the walls to use for the discussion of alternatives over the cost.  CO CO  :03.0  finishes. o\ CN  VE  02:01.0  17:04.0  15:03.0  o  OW  Liam Murray indicated that before proceeding to the formal value Analysis part of the meeting, the group would have to reach consensus as to whether the ~5m cost savings target was achievable. There was no consensus around the table that V / A alone would not achieve the target cost savings. Challenges from automatic to manual damp, all recorded on the handout. Al Poettcker indicated that trying to reduce costs while maintaining the design goals untouched would compromise the project moving forward. He can't support the project proceeding based on the current state of affairs. (Owner believes that it is "hopelessly" over budget.) A l is trying to answer why the challenge is up to the table to cut down the cost. Because they have seen 150/sf for residential, or 650/sf for downtown to sell by 1000/sf. They think they might do it for a while; the real issue is that they don't see anything sustainable here. Sustainability is also about economics of the project.  D  --  --  Y  E X  --  --  Y  02:32.0  19:37.6  17:05.5  P M is describing the costs using the cost sheet on the meeting. Everyone is taking new notes, the things that P M is also writing down on his papers.  PM  Documentation Issue:  D  Cost Info  1  Y  P M is describing the cost estimating: Stuart Olson and Helyar numbers. Everyone is taking notes, writing down on the papers, including the P M . Again they don't have enough copies. They are waiting for more photocopies, another 2 min halt. (Lesson the Preparation time for each meeting) 18 min is past, Electrical Engineer say we don't have sheets!!!  Ron is describing that the design should be changed to a certain degree. He is describing they right people are attending the meeting. o  00:26.4  CO  CN  21:52.6  CN  21:26.2  oq co -* ON  vq co CN  ON  CO ON O  CN (N  (N CN  ON CN co  rN CN  CN co  o o  oo  ON  CO  IT)  CN  o  d  oo  r~  lO  CN CN CN  CN  >/o CN  O  25:50.0  ro  00:38.8  CO  26:28.7  d  CM  OW  D  • changing the design or reducing the scope Owner is evaluating if 15% of the scope is reduced. The question is can you do that and maintain the program!  P M is describing the evaluation (considered as evaluative task) that 15% might not be a right number and we should study the number. PM  OW  A l from U B C PT predicts: What-If the regulatory agency does not give up the redundancies, how is that being sustainable? Some additional questions were asked: what's sustainable about duplicating systems? What are the fundamental goals that the building is trying to achieve?  What redundancy are we talking about? Blair (ME) is asking, and is answered by the Owner the design rationale: the case of connection to the water network. By the design so far they are only thinking of storm water, but they are going to connect to the city system. Why are you using such a duplicated system? Blair is mentioning that it was a project goal. ME  ME  The cost for water is increasing! Maybe water should be more expensive for these systems to make sense cost-wise. Blair is describing the reasons: Water is cheap two years ago. Price issues have changed recently.  -  -  Y  ( G o o d example) E V  -  -  N  Continue on previous E V E V  P  -  -  -  -  N  N  E X  -  -  Y  E V  -  -  Y  Artifacts/ Documentation Issues: V / A people are calculating at the meeting. Electrical engineer is writing down the notes for themselves. C o m m e n t , P r o v i d e remote access to the i n f o r m a t i o n discussed: cost information data needs to be accessed from outside of the workspace A r t e f a c t s Issue/ R e m o t e Access to the meeting Issue: (25 min later from the beginning of the meeting, John gets on the phone, he's disconnected again)  M  ON  04:37.1  03:34.8  CN O  02:01.4  02:41.9  00:21.8  c  CN O CO O  CN O o  00:59.2  c  00:38.9  C  03:27.0  >  S ir  04:34.0  CN  05:16.0  00:40.5 o 2  OW  o  OW  ME  VE  PM  ME  A l says when these systems are used, there are obviously savings on the life cycle, but now we are paying twice, but there's no answer for that now. He thinks that this building is way of.  Continue on the previous discussion concurrent with OW. Who is in charge of the priorities: is it John's responsibility.  E X  —  (Running at the same time as ME)  --  --  P M thinks that John Robinson should have been here, P M asks is this group committed to do this task together. Then provide a set of recommendations and bring it back to research people on this project. Peter and John have to be here. How we would do it? we all know how to simply the building to a certain degree.  Y  (Running at the time as OW) E  Y  X According to the magnitude of tasks at hand, there are lots of cutting that should be done, the question is why is this building doing too much? V / A Explains: the magnitude is significant because we haven't met the boundaries. If we had met them, there would have not been a meeting today. How and why we should achieve this? This is the reason for value analysis.  N  E X  --  --  Y  (Example) D  --  --  D  Y  Y  01:50.5  oo  CO  00:09  o  07:40.8  o  07:54  07:45  05:50.2  o  oo CN  -P  p ON  What-if we reduce it to one system? Because of all the redundancies every consultant has made a premium, it means they are paying twice.  OW  CM  A l says we are getting to the heart of it. A l says the people who created the image and they started the fund rising are not here. But he says that he has participated in a meeting six weeks ago on the structure. The goals on the sustainability with the structure are not understandable the owner, really margin able, yet it did not come out of the table. Ron thinks we can save. Ron says they can save by going to steel structure.  D  --  --  Y  D  —  --  Y  oo oo  oo  oo o  10:16.4  08:11.9  o  O  o  "o  p_ —  CM  VO <N  o  ME  Demountability or a simple steel structure Ron McFee: It's almost two weeks that they can be trying to come up with a cost efficient solution with Fast & Epps. The impact with metal deck has mechanical consideration, but it would reduce the costs. Not entertaining demountability issue. The goals where to use wood and demountability, they have used and now it has failed; As long as next alternative would be pretty simple. M / E says that their alternative has not worked on Convention centre. (Continue on CM's comments)  01:00.7 01:10.0 00:26.5  12:31.9 13:49.7 14:19.3  CM  VE  OW  SE  E V  —  —  Y  --  --  N  E  Y  V  o  15:37.1  14:19.03  13:52.8  12:39.7  11:31.2  O  oo  01:17.8  CN  ON  E X  BA  D  02:04.5  *o  r-;  o  We should get rid of the basement. He mentioned some of the ideas they had but didn't fit the project goals. They don't need those sustainable goals, program goals and static goals, unfortunate that visionary people of the project are not attending. A H suggests that they should stick with the structure as an example because it is 80$/sf now. Is that happened to meet the project goal? Is it the goal that is pushing or is it the design? (Concurrent)  A l : Why the structure is this expensive? Is it the goals of the project that are driving the cost of the design itself? SE says these are the goals that are driving. (Question on design rationale), JR should realize the cost on these goals. (Concurrent with Value Eng E V before) He thinks that they can simplify quite a bit. There was a particular meeting that I was not involved but John Robinson had a conversation to direct us to this. They knew that there would be a premium. Were they aware of it? They should realize the cost of that.  E •V  E V  --  --  --  --  N  N  Artefacts/ Documentation issue: It is 45 min past but the V / A people are still pushing on with their calculations. They are writing down new numbers on their sheets. (Example)  E X  --  --  N  E X  --  --  Y  00:04.7 00:59.2  15:41.8 16:45.6  15:37.1 15:46.5  SE  CN  CN  ON  CN  OW /SE  co  ro  rCN  00:37.4 00:10.9  20:22.0  20:06.4  o  00:23.4  20:28.2  20:11.1  19:29.1  VO  20:51.6  od  VE  ME  CM  CM  q CN  o  CM  A H : How much of the goal are you sacrificing on sustainability goal? (15min, second part, C D 1),  SE can't answer easily. Demountability is one of the most important driving issues on the cost. The idea of taking the building apart in the future. Moving wait from cast in place system. Is this goal realistic? I have a problem with the demountability as we have to move from cast-in-place system. I don't know why? Is this goal realistic? A l : What-if the structural system wants to be ranked among the systems. Window-wall stands among the topics (10th), where does the structure stands in that scale, as it is a huge cost? There is a redundancy even with wood and steel option. A l had mentioned that it might be difficult to be signed off by a structural engineer, as it is so unique. SE would sign liable as long as nobody touches the design, wall will not move. Can't we move forward and do something? Let us create a list of options and opportunities and have John and Martin look at this. We have to get something out of this meeting. Should we get rid of the basement  These are old ideas, at one point we thought, we can't carry out with the goals, U B C PT says if they can't go with these goals, then there's a question that how we would rank these goals? It has never done before; it has all been equally treated. Whether it is structure or the M & E systems. Ron, What-if we maintain the goals of the project? Would the project proceed? Ron McFee indicated that it would be helpful to rank the design goals of the project as a tool to guide the discussion.  Ron says that are the ideas on the building at the same level? He thinks that Marco can do the ranking to the best ability without John and Peter. If that a prime goal to use the 100% day lighting? Ron McFee indicated that the project is paying a premium of ~$lm for trying to achieve 100% daylighting. (Estimator comments also)  E X  -  E X  -  P  -  -  N  D  -  -  Y  D  -  -  Y  P  -  -  N  -  N  N  -  Visualization Issue/ Better decision-making E V  -  -  N  53 min passed the 3D mock-up model is brought to the meeting to help achieving better visualization of the items in the building that can be changed.  T  OS CN  O O  01:07.0  24:26.4  23:!9.5 T)  OW  ro  o  CN  O  CN  CM/ OW  CM  CN  o  od TI  00:04.7 00:36.1  03:05.4  02:29.3 p  01:10.1  c  01:05.4  o  Tl  No Time  No Time  -  --  N  E X  -  --  N  26+32 m i n passed. P 3 begins:  become zeal beyond the world class LEED, it can be important Dto the -project. Without peter and John here, he suggests going back to the primary  --  Y  goals of the project. From the value engineering point of view that's a good thing to focus on. What's the function? Is the function considered? VE  IMEC: Explains why it is true that they should review the goals: there's a gross of Mech that can come out of building. MC  Elec Contractor explains: the M & E components are almost interconnected. Control system is also another major thing, way beyond.  ro ro o O O o No Time  Ron explains why he sees that structure is not a prime goal to the project when he looks in how BCIT would use the building. Ron thinks day lighting is a huge issue. Atrium cuts down significantly from the value of the building.  D  Ron describes some previous experience: he says the curtain wall is not a research platform; it is an elegant adjunct element to the. building. But to  +_  CN  rr o - oo oo o . 5 -3 C  There is a waste space. Day lighting would get more expensive if you get rid of those spaces. Therefore, day lighting won't have a meaning. BCIT Rep says let us create a ladder for the goals of the project as a valuable approach. From Cluster, A research he would support it.  EC  CM  D  --  --  N  E X  • --  -  Y  E X  --  --  Y  Ron explains the rationale behind the costs. M & E there are pretty gobs of money that they can get out for the goals that are lessen, not beyond E "beyond LEED". The others should remain, and sustain funding on the X revenue side of the project  ( C o n n e c t e d w i t h the task m e n t i o n e d below) --  --  Y  CN  >o  o  CN CN ON  M3  o  o  02:04.7  06:06.2  04:01.5  Jeff: The control system cost seem to be high, it's beyond an extremely controllable building.  CO MO CO  o  MC  PM / CM / OW  One minor mistake on the cost estimation by SO, Jeff asks if the unit cost or the total cost are correct. It seems that unit cost is wrong on the paper-based cost estimation sheet. Cost Estimator describes that he has considered it on the overall budget but he's forgotten to change it in the more detailed report  P M asks what the cost of this vision wall is. Can you put it into rough estimate? How much is that? What is the premium on the controls? So as the premium for control system is higher we should go for that, But Gord says you should look at the residual cost of that. The atrium area, skylight and the other issues around it. It's not apple to apple comparison. A L says there are goals that are parallel:  E X  r-  o  c-j co  o  >o  oo  o  ©  BA  1  Y  Intra-Group Activity:  E V/ E X  Cost info  1  N  E X  3D phys ical moc k-up Mod el  1  Y  Both ancillary zones won't be rentable  CN ON  Cost Info  Documentation issue: (Errors in Paper-based calculations, not changeable). (Min4, 3rd part) (Lack of information autoexchange), everyone should correct their sheets. Need for personal focus: It seems that everyone needs to have his or her focus on data sheet. There is less interest to look at one big cost sheet only able to look at a page all the time, not letting you to browse the sheets. Side talk among cost estimators: trying to come up with rough estimation for the surrounding issues with the vision wall, to perform a glass-to-glass comparison. The group agreed that the next step would be to ask the consulting team to come back with a set of proposals and recommendations to bring the cost down to target levels.  PM/ VE  It was decided that in order to facilitate the V/A discussion chaired by Liam Murray, it would be helpful to write the sustainable design goals of the project on a whiteboard so we could assess which ones would get affected by V/A proposals. There is a whiteboard just beside the sketches on the wall. The sustainable design goals (as per AC's recollection ) that were written on the whiteboard are: 1. 3D and paperless design 2. Little mechanical ventilation intensity 3. 100% day- lighting 4. Sustainable materials 5. Water self sufficiency 6. No liquid waste leaves the site 7. GHG neutral operations 8. Net energy producer* (over time) 9. Superior IAQ 10. Regenerative concept 11. Super-monitoring 12. Air quality  Figure 1-2.  Different Types of information presentation used. The Head Value Engineer is trying to write down the design goals on the whiteboard just beside the architectural floor plans which are attached to the wall on one side of the meeting room. On the other side, 4 other elevation views are hung. 3D physical mock-up model is on the table. Lots of hand outs are around the table; on one side Value Engineers are taking notes of the things written on the whiteboard, on the other side, there is also a side-talk between mechanical engineer and mechanical contractor as they are going through mechanical cost-items on the distributed sheets.  Documentation/Visualization issue:  The goals are not easily readable in the room from different views, and everyone is taking notes, probably if there had been access to project files, time was not consumed on writing down. On the other hand, there is a benefit in writing. It seems that everyone is thinking about each item that is written.  (1) E X/ (2) D  Boa rd  Y  PM indicated to everyone that he is going through these items by memory, can anyone check if there are exactly the goals? AH is going through the line items, 5 min is spent on writing them down on the whiteboard but item number 12 is missed in the postmeeting minutes published to Buzzsaw! Al from UBC PT mentions that he can't clearly see the lineitems, and then he asks for clarification on demountable structure. And demountable window wall?  00:09.3  15:25.6  15:16.3  PM  P M explains that the demountable window is only a portion of the window. Not all of it. Ron continues on describing that BCIT is basically moving the envelope lab they have to the project. Lots of sensors involved with it. Specific assemblies with monitories thing on it. A l asks where geo thermal comes. Ties to energy saving? Super-monitoring, the issue of specific assemblies. Constantly evolving research activity  CM CN  r~' CN  oo CO r-  Boa rd  1  Y  E X  -  -  Y  d CN O  01:10.1 00:03.1  18:48.2 18:54.4  17:38.1  E X  ON  OW  18:51.3  Focus is still on the whiteboard.  A l is evaluating that geo-thermal is not as efficient as normal systems are. He indicated that their research shows that there is a difference in the system and the others.  VE  CM  100% day lighting is impacting more than anything else from the architectural point of view. If you consider roof area as a part of the assembly. It has affected net-to-gross area.  (tied to a b o v e  E V  -  -  N  E V  -  -  -  E X  -  -  Y  E X  -  -  Y  P  -  -  Y  00:04.7 04:56.1  19:05.3 24:07.7  19:11.6  19:00.7  M E ask if the atrium should be reduced in size. S/O says the atrium is the only thing to get 100% day lighting.. ME  [Blair McCarry indicated that he has seen many commercial buildings with atriums. There was consensus around the table that if 100% day- lighting is a critical design goal (and it is - confirmed by John Robinson) then the atrium is certainly a means by which that could be achieved.] S/O is asked if they reduce the size of the atrium, the distance, what would happen to the building.  CM  activity)  q  c ~*. vc — i -o r \ £> vc N  q —  N  c Tt  Tt  f  ex N  C  o  — rs  c  Visualization Issue:  B/A.explains, M / E explains the 300ft candle by atrium. Owner asks if they affect the services. M / E is asked what mean 100% day lighting. M / E explains the standards around lightings BA/ ME  E X  3D phys ical moc k-up mod el  1  Y  P  -  -  N  E X/ P  -  — rx  M / E is using the 3D model to explain the issues around 100% day lighting. Owner wonders if we are thinking all this through. He explains we have a senior population here in Vancouver, which needs more light.  24:51.3  Is it a primary goal to the project, 100% day lighting?  3  .  Tt Tt  O  IT)  d  Tt  CN  » c  P 50 <J  ko  r> N  oo-nn n  T OW - c o c  Tt'  Tt  in ro  d  oo in  o o  CN in ro  o  Tt  00  in ro  O  What's the purpose of doing it on this particular building? For the cost of doing that? Does it make sense for the cost side of it is it sustainable in terms of cost? Millions of dollars on day lighting, E E explains that reduction of energy is a goal to the project; Owner asks if in this particular building, it makes sense? Why we are using 100% day lighting (design rationale question). You guys did the 16 Building at U B C . They say everyone has heaters, air conditioners, in our office we have half of the people using table lights.  ro in ro O  02:10.3  CM  O  N N  Fart 4  ro  OW  O  O O  in t~ Tt  o  Part 4: 11.30' min E X  -  -  Y  P  -  -  N  Some of the mechanical systems re not simple. Are there ways to achieve energy saving from the cost-benefit analysis point of view? OW  VE  Liam indicated that time is lost as the meeting is proceeding but no resolve is achieved. So the mood of the conversation should change. (No decision is made so far) Go back to your number in August, structure is one approach, we did talk about area also, or is it possible to lose the bases?  N  Quality of Meeting/ Time Issue D  2D  1  Y  01:06.2 03:09.5  04:52.2 08:09.3  04:59.8  03:46.1  We should go back to users groups. PM  CM/ OW  /  Gord (Estimator) reminds that decreasing the area doesn't mean that we are reducing the cost directly, as some systems remain the same. The group decided to focus on components first and net-to-gross ratios and areas last.  E X  -  -  Y  E X  ~  -  Y  P  2D  2  N  PM If we look into net-to-gross ratio, what would happen to the building? VE  in Tt  Tt  —  o  OW  linked  Linked  linked  CM  Linked  Linked  PM  Lined  08:13.5  o  10:46.5  ON  02:33.0  NO  BA/ ME  John Robinson is on the phone after an hour and a half from the meeting. John is connected through a teleconference; he is asking can I ask who is on the room? It seems that there is a need to be able to visually connect to him, so that he would feel that he is in the meeting himself. Alberto is explaining to John Robinson reached by the phone that he is going system to system to identify the problems. People around the room, the ideas around the cost reductions.  Ron describes retention plan strategy? (linked to above)  Artefact Issue/ Remote Access D  E X  -  -  -  -  Y  V/A Discussion chaired by Liam Murray: Y  (linked to above activity) E X  -  -  Y Linked to above  B A describes that the systems should change place.  D John Robinson pointed out that his preference would be to focus on size reductions while maintaining system performance/capabilities.  OW  From this point of time, V E chairs the meeting  3D  1  Y CD B, Parti: 26:38  E V  -  -  Y  "Or  0  Z/i >/ "3N  00:37.5 01:10.2  01:24.3  0  : :  " r c: M E c  01:47.7 01:57.7  06:27.1 09:01.6 10:02.5  08:04.8  07:13.9  05:16.8  00:46.8  5 O ±> --5 0 -5 o c :5 — r:5 c ^— c  CM  BASEMENT: Blair: We could get rid of the fire pump altogether, along with its corresponding water storage requirements. This would also bring the cost of the emergency generator and related systems down. Blair: Can we use culverts instead of a cistern for rainwater storage? Ron McFee suggested that we should get rid of the whole basement area, which would resolve some of the critical and costly issues of water table problems, de-watering, etc.  E XI  E V E V  -  -  N  -  -  N  (Concurrent with the above Task, times considered together) Figure 1-3. Building Architect walks to the wall, tries to describe how to reduce the square footage in the 2D floor plan. He points to a plan on the wall. BA/ CM  CM  OW  Comments: People are having difficulties to properly observe the plans (EV because it is the continue of Ron's discussion) Whether to get rid of the whole basement versus parts of it. Ron walks to the board, he point to specific parts of the 2D sketch and he tries to explain it over the phone to John, Perhaps in a case like that having things on the smart boards can help as they can send it instantly to John and he can check it while he is away from the meeting table Figure 1-4. Ron walks to the board, he point to specific parts of the 2D sketch and he tries to explain it over the phone to John, Perhaps having a remote access to data shared at these meetings (being able at least to see the sketches) would help the John Robinson (Client Rep) to follow the discussion. John describes that Peter Busby is the one who should be on the meeting to describe the technical aspects of the design with sustainable ideas around it. M & E systems would have to be relocated and we would loose some water cistern capabilities. Don Yen (BCIT Rep) indicated that this would have some advantages from a demonstration/educational standpoint. We need to find a creative way of replacing M & E space without loosing program functionality.  E V  2D  1  Y  I E V  2D  2  P . ,  1  iijg  1  P*  t f JI p  D  -  -  ;J| 1  i  N  •  j•  00:26.5  09:34.4  10:00.9  Linked  Linked  Linked  OW  ME  Can we architecturally live with having most of the M&E systems currently located in the basement, mounted at ground level and exposed to the weather? What would be the implications of that? Blair McCarry indicated that there would significant savings associated with relocating fans and AHUs on the roof.  P  3D  1  Y Linked with below activity  E X  -  -  N  E X  3 d  1  Y  E X  -  -  N  Service Cores:  17:39.8  13:13.8  05:20.0  1«  | « j  Lined above  I 3.l >  B J  OW /BA  OW  04:26.0  15:30.3  10:10.3  Why do we have two service cores (north and south)?  VE/ OW  Marco Bonaventura indicated that there are "limiting distance" issues. Figure 1-5. The Building Architect is explaining the rational behind two service course on north and south parts of the building. He is pointing to the 3D mock-up model. Al: Can a central service core be designed? Marco Bonaventura indicated that there is an opportunity to get rid of the north service core altogether. CM: Long and short of it is that 5 million dollar needs to be getting out of the building, and for that drastic measure should be made. Owner asks what the hierarchical order of decision-making here is. John Robinson says that they have another proposal for the CIRS project for 5 more million dollars on this project. They are dispersedly trying hard to get more funds not to change anything on the project as is. John thinks he can not contribute to the discussion. How and When this V/A is going to happen.  A H says that there is no decision made today, they are only trying to find the potentials for reducing the costs. He says this is not a typical building, not the same story, premiums are higher, there has been items identified to be dealt with, but not cost wise dealt with it. He thinks they need to give more information to get the decisions made. AH indicated that D/ even if the 5 million dollar is provided from the proposal that is not going to E affect the V/A process, because ultimately the task is to do the design as X optimal as possible. They think there is another component to sustainability and that's the cost side of it. John thinks they should come into the cost of other buildings of UBC. They should consider the cost as a component as Sustainability.  (Conf)  -  -  N  Documentation issue  ON CO  26.0  2;  r--  CO  00:57.8 02:20.5  o  CN  o  00:09.4  20:39.4  ON  IT)  ON  20:39.4  CO CO  o  CN  iri CN CN CN  E X  VE  OW  PM  t~  d  NO ON  Linked to above  -  --  --  O  20:48.7  18:18.9  18:26.7  oq  17:28.9  00 CO  CN CN  l/-> CN  O  EE  OW  OW  There is confusion around table whether they should cut $5m or $6.6m as A l is indicating.  5 m is over last budget. Some contingency has been released so 1.6$ is done. Contingency on tendering, escalation are also released.  E E predicts that electrical generator should go out so that would be the same as electrical transformer which is outside. Level 1 communication room should be bigger on the first floor. So space is taking out of basement but program functionality on the ground floor would be kept. C M Suggests these are good points but are not resolved. Should be resolved by architects. He describes commercial buildings. John Robinson indicated that we can only cut so much before reaching a point where it would not be worthwhile to build CIRS as it would look as just another commercial building. Why should there be two elevators? Commercial buildings have one elevator and it's working. E E : we got two cores on the sides; on commercial buildings we got one central core.  Documentation Issue D  --  --  Y  E X  --  --  Y  P  --  --  N  D  --  --  Y  E X  --  --  Y  26:38.7  04:07.0 00:45.2 03:14.7  00:48.3 03:56.7  22:31.7 00:03.1 00:42.0  CM/ ME/ BA  Central cores and other components have been discussed before? VA says should be thinking about it? One elevator room, might not be critical. Figure 1-6. The mechanical contractor is asking the architect (pointing to the 3D model) why we have two service zones, with stairs each two sides of the building. What is the whole concept of the atrium? o Value engineer has walked to that side of table to get a chance to clearly see the 3D mock-up model, o On the other side of the room, electrical contractor has walked to the wall to check the 2D plan sketches that are attached there. Then the Mechanical Contractor stands up to clearly see the 3D model. -> Info Vis stand point. Whole concept of the atrium system might need to be changed if the core would be in the middle of the building. C M thinks architects should look into putting one central core to the building as from the usage standpoint; it doesn't make sense at all having two service zones? C M talks about the fact that bikes can go out side. Discussion on the phone with Owner on the placement of the bikes (it is in the basement now, might go out outdoor facilities for the bikes. Let's talk on structure  CM  CM/ OW  Structure: Ron McFee indicated that the current structural design of composite wood+ steel core+ precast concrete is very expensive. Can we consider a light steel structure with metal decking? This would be significantly cheaper. Ron asked if this would mean to get rid of the radiant slab system. To owner life cycle assessment and environmental issues are quite clear. BCIT PT evaluates the options of getting rid of the wood structure or for demonstration it would be better to keep the wood. John Robinson pointed out that from a LCA perspective, the wood+ steel+ precast concrete would be preferable. John Robinson indicated that CIRS is about both, research and demonstration.  At 23min on this part of CD Bpart 1, electrical contractor walk s to the wall to investigate issues on the sketches. E X  -  -  N  4  1  ]  _B  Figure 1-6. Pic from CD B, at min 24:11 April 05th, 2006, CD B-Part 2  E X  -  ~  Y  E V/ E X  -  -  N  02:13.9  00:46.7 01:28.8 o  07:16.0  NO  03:17.8  o  O  09:26.8  04:37.2 06:06.0  o f-" o  07:12.9  03:50.5  ON CN  10:33.8  04:37.2 o •o o  SE  SE  CM  CM/ OW  VE  Julien Fagnan (SE) indicated that an "intermediate" approach could be taken by keeping the current design while loosing "demountability" and the possibility of moving seismic bracing panels around. Julian predicts that removing those options would reduce the cost significantly. Owner is asking the SE to come up with a list of alternatives to study and evaluate options. Discussions of VA and Owner are considered explanative but continue of EV. CM suggests light steel structure as major saving on piles. Ron describes the Exterior Skin, How much vision to solids is in the building? the concept of the atrium for 100% day lighting! Highly ranked goals! John describes Based on SDTC, CFI, BCKDF rules, we can reduce the amount of 4-element curtain- wall but we can eliminate it altogether Ron evaluates the CIRS with some other research facilities. Evaluative Task: We need to compare the performance of the Vision wall system currently considered with other high performance products out there to satisfy ourselves that we've got the best product. Surely there are areas that they can do value engineering, they have the 5 million dollar cut of, and it might sacrifice the goals.  P  -  -  N  E V  -  -  N  D  E V/ E X  -  ~  N  D  -  -  Y  Building Architect describes that they have been looking at Ancillary spaces and they explain that they think there's no need for worrying about the cost caused by the services around. oq ro  m o  m  m  MO  CN CN O  BA  He is pointing to the 3D model at the table, consideration on redistribution of services around the building. He explains he reasons of total glass. He changes the side of the 3D model to get a better view. People at this time are still trying to capture the design rationale using the 3D. The Cost estimator and value engineers are standing up beyond the architect to get a chance to look at the model. The other v/a people are still performing their calculations at the meeting and trying to capture the ideas that are discussed at the meeting.  Y  D  3D phys ical moc k-up mod el  '  1  •  M  . A  J  IB  1 1  Y Figure 1-7. Min 11:07 a picture is needed  1  GN i n i n o  Ti-  ro  CN c  oo CN o  CM/ VA/ OW  Ron McFee indicated that Stuart Olson was treated pretty poorly by Vision wall (which was also Altus Helyar's opinion) and that as far as they are concerned, they don't seem to be responsive at all. They can't commit to the demands that the current project schedule would place on them, (predicting the effects of vision wall not cooperating) Advance glazing may be good for this reason. C M says he is not close enough technically to predict, they have to do research. CM: Solid-to-vision should be on the table. N  Ron McFee and Liam Murray are to send AC their comments about their dealings with Vision wall. John Robinson indicated that if we need to find another partner, we can do so, but we would need to ask SDTC to allow us to proceed with another partner Ron McFee questioned the need for an atrium and pointed out that an atrium is a costly element that also impacts negatively the net-to-gross ratio of the project. Ron pointed out that A l Poettcker indicated to him the need to eliminate the atrium if it came to that. (Predictive Task) Question on the cost sheet, CM estimator answers E X  BA  Cost Info  N/ C  Explain on Day lighting option- envelop characteristics. OW: If you see the envelope on structure sites, it's like scaffolding. Is it a research space description: 0.5 million dollar impact CN  o >/-,  d n  q CN  OW Figure 1-8. The mechanical eng explains the glazing using the 3D mock up model. He is discussing the research wall on the side of the building.  C  Does it have to go to all levels? He thinks it is a research area question.  IT)  d o  r 1  E X  CN  Q O  OW  E X  Y  PM: Alberto Cayuela indicated that he would write a strongworded letter to Vision wall letting them know of their current underperformance and asking for a firm commitment to the project in terms of cost, inkind donations and schedule/production requirements.  03:16.2 01:59.9  24:40.9 26:34.6  21:24.7 24:34.7  Gro up  Gro up (ME / EE)  Owner evaluating if the wall should go up to the highest level! Mechanical or electrical system should be considered? Both? concerning redundancies, John Robinson agrees  Mechanical & Electrical C M : We need to explore the relocation of M & E systems from the basement into other building areas, interior and exterior. Blair McCarry indicated that 'why redundancy' is not the right question, the real issue is whether we want the wastewater and drinking water systems. Sunny Ghataurah indicated that the electrical cost estimate includes duplications. He asked Bridge to review the errors noted so that the overall estimate can be corrected and re-distributed. [EE has mentioned the control systems. Generator is getting bigger; UPS and backup needed are getting bigger. They would review the scopes and see where they can cut off. Identify the places that they can cut off. They will look at all of the options. (ME & EE). P M also explains the generator option to move outside. M E & E E Explaining on the options 1  E V  -  -  N  E X  -  -  N  Should we pay a premium? The cost of the room itself? Margin for Civil and Mechanical & Engineering are higher, they would study why?  CD B-Part 2, 25:13 min  00:51.'  00:51.'  00:00.1  The mechanical and electrical contractors indicated that there has been "scope creep" in the design of electrical and mechanical systems. A server room requiring cooling and additional emergency generator capacity was added, additional communications rooms, etc. CM  The group agreed that Stantec M & E together with IMEC and Bridge need to review where there has been scope creep so we can determine if it can be pulled out. If you put generator outside, what are the impacts of it? If you move to have only a central communication room, the cost would be less. But when you want to expand the building, then you would ask to get one more communication room.  P  N  00:43.2  01:40.9  00:57.6  Very concepts on CIRS are on a hierarchy, it would be good to decrease the scope. Let us have hierarchy. OW  Hierarchy of the decision-making process, why it is important • John Robinson asked what the hierarchy for decisions would be for the V / A process.  D  -  -  Y  •  E E has another radical approach, explaining the dollar to square foot  :28.4  up  01:06.3  09:16.2  08:09.9  03:39.0  :59.2  o  CN O  08:04.2  Gro  ro O  04:25.1 .  :30.8  if we increase the size of the building, the dollar per square foot, you still need those systems.  BA/ CM  Owner: He also indicated that his team is vigorously pursuing a $5m proposal with Ottawa. • In regard to the Windmill proposal to add another 20,000sf of space to CIRS, it was agreed that the overall numbers would look much better if this proposal were approved as it would add mainly office space with minimal system incremental cost. QJohn Robinson needs to discuss the Windmill proposal with A l Poettcker. P M says we don't know about the proposal C M says the proposal is for that particular improvement to the building. Building Architect predicts reducing the vision wall, changing the vision-tosolid ratio, maybe getting the services rapped around the corners decreases the costs. C M : In terms of the curtain-wall itself it was decided that ancillary spaces on the north facade do not actually need curtain-wall at all. We need to review the clear-to-opaque ratio of the curtain wall in general as spandrel would be cheaper than the 4-element system. These are the kinds that we might approach cost savings.  E  P  3D moc k-up mod el  1  N  P  3D moc k-up mod el  1  N  A H explains why every small deduction in cost should be considered. Is that sky lighting the best way to get rid of the atrium? VE  N  X  00:59.1 03:04.4  10:18.2 13:19.7  09:19.1 10:15.3' :01.0  VE  r~;  TT'  rn m  PM  Atrium seems to be an important thing, Let us keep it as the last on the line. We have to get the design to the next stage not to face escalations. Let's know the impacts of every change in the design. . Liam Murray indicated that the time impact of decisions needs to be taken into consideration. . Liam indicated that the team, irrespective of how busy they are, need to give it all if we are to succeed in this challenge. We should get ready for board approval. How to come up with solutions, next week to come up with all the possible proposals to cut costs.  01:25.0  o  16:01.1  m Tt-  14:36.1  m  CM  That's a volume cost buried. P M : We cannot reduce the day lighting so much. They just pointed out that they are building that sky light works  p  ON  ON  NO  O CN oo  rn  Gro  18:26.7  19:25.7  00:59.1  PM/ BA/ CM  20:46.4  01:12.0  up  19:34.4  O CN O  CM  BA  What-if we reduce the cots on control systems. It is l$m now! Control systems can be a major. Central Core is something that Busby should look into Structure should be looked at. Let's get a simple steel structure designed and let's play with it B M A L let us put it on the corners. Let the structure to be simple. Are we talking about 50,000? Do you need more than that? Can we save 10,000 on the generators? All the options should be considered together. We got reservoir and a generator versus... PM: in terms of the next steps, He describes what Just sketch all the ideas. If we get rid of the basement and do not add square footage to the building, so you have got rid of 6,000 sq2, 1/10 of the building. Even though might not be the same price per square foot... He explains reducing the program and see if they can push the envelope.  E X  3D moc k-up mod el  1  Y  E X  -  -  Y  E  Y  X  -  -  N  3D moc k-up  1  N  D/ P  3D  1  N  E X  3D  1  N  P  E V  :05.4 01:19.3  :38.8  CN O  23:59.5  :33.5  rN rN  22:40.3  o  PM  PM  Program is flexible, we have to see the options, and act just accordingly in the smart way, not to lose the functionality, reducing the area, CFI would accept it. P M is explaining that they would post all the material and the minutes today on Buzzsaw. Then people would look and come up with their alternatives P M describes the next steps: Access to data is explained. Liam Murray clarified that next week's meeting could be used to review design proposals and that costing would follow that, but E C says we can come up with all. Ron McFee said that we would need to be more specific as to what we are asking the design team to complete by next Wednesday. The design team needs to review the following elements and come prepared to discuss design modifications that will save substantial construction cost, at the next design meeting on Wednesday April 12: o No basement o Exterior skin issues o Mechanical/electrical scope creep, redundancies, relocations o Siemens-supplied equipment and controls o Structure o B M A L adjustments o Alberto Cayuela indicated that the user group would look at the equipment budget as well and come prepared to discuss adjustments to the number of control points and the size of the security system for instance. There are telephones, emails contacting soon to do the work back and forth coming up with the ideas. Clear message: get the money out.  P  -  -  N  Documentation issue: Buzzsaw is an important tool for sharing information among A E C teams  E X  -  -  N  (information collaborations)  5. Observation/ Lessons Learned 1. In Value Engineering Sessions there is a need to support Predictive tasks and improve the quality of prediction, specifically to study cost impact of changing many elements and designs within the building. These tasks are often discussed without having the problems solved at the meeting, e.g.  o  In this meeting electrical engineer suggested that they would move the electrical generator outside o f the building to put it beside the electrical transformer, so basement space needed for the generator would be lessened, program functionality would be kept and overall cost would be minimized. After another meeting in two weeks, he came back and mentioned that they can not proceed with this option as the price o f cabling would go higher, and meanwhile the architects had come back with a lower height for the basement to reduce the cost. N o w they have to go back to the early height as the generator should go back to its original place in the basement. These kinds o f impacts on overall project cost could not be studied at the meeting so they suggested that they agree upon the change and they have returned back with the cost savings but the prediction was inaccurate and inefficient.  2. I n f o r m a t i o n visualization/ quality of evaluative tasks: 15.5% of the meeting's time, A E C teams utilized spatial information to perform value engineering tasks. This spatial information includes both 2 D and 3D. ... 3 1 % o f the time related to spatial information, 3D mock-up model was used to study different design alternatives. Having the 3 D mock-up model provided a better chance to come up with some new ideas, e.g. atrium discussion...  p  1  p  i  ^  i  i  ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ jf^f^^,  "J^  JWNU1 (  ?  u  Figure 1-9. Info-Vis pictures  ™«IKTX):;,'I'  mum'  3. V i s u a l i z a t i o n Issues: o  The Value Engineer is pointing to the plans and elevations at the walls to use for the discussion o f alternatives over the cost. He is trying to demonstrate A E C teams that they need to focus visually on areas, skin, exterior and finishes.  o  Visualization Issue/ Better decision-making •  1/3 of the meeting (53min) passed, the 3D mock-up model is brought to the meeting to help achieve better visualization of the elements in the building that can be changed. (3D models may provide better understanding of the design)  4. Documentation Issues: o  Lack of real-time information correction: Errors in Paper-based calculations, not changeable •  One minor mistake on the cost estimation by Contactors (SO), Jeff ( M Contractor) asks i f the unit cost or the total cost is correct. It seems that unit cost is wrong on the paper-based cost estimation sheet. Cost Estimator describes that he has considered it on the overall budget but he's forgotten to change it in the more detailed report! Everyone should correct their sheets.  5. Documentation/Visualization issue: o  It was decided that in order to facilitate the V / A discussion chaired by L i a m Murray, it would be helpful to write the sustainable design goals of the project on a whiteboard so we could assess which ones would get affected by V / A proposals. There is a whiteboard just beside the sketches on the wall. The sustainable design goals (as per A C ' s recollection ) that were written on the whiteboard are: 3D and paperless design, Little mechanical ventilation intensity, 100% day- lighting, Sustainable materials, Water self sufficiency, N o liquid waste leaves the site, G H G neutral operations, Net energy producer* (over time), Superior I A Q , Regenerative concept, Super-monitoring, A i r quality o  Benefits of Writing: The goals are not easily readable in the room from different views, and everyone is taking notes, probably i f there had been access to digital files, time was not consumed on writing down. On the other hand, there is a benefit in writing. It seems writing makes everyone to think about all of the items.  o  Inaccuracy in text/ time spent writing: P M indicated to everyone that he is going through these items by memory, can anyone check i f there are exactly the goals? A H is going through the line items, 4 min is spent on writing them down on the whiteboard but item number 12 is missed in the post-meeting minutes published to Buzzsaw!  Need for personal focus: •  It seems that everyone needs to have their focus on their own data sheet. One large view on a cost sheet only allows looking at a page all the time, not letting browse the cost information sheets. Everyone needs a separate copy to take personal notes.  Lack of a Shared view to clarify: •  There is confusion around table whether they should cut $5m or $6.6m as A l is indicating. 5 m is over last budget. Some contingency has been released so 1.6$ is done. Contingency on tendering, escalation are also released. The discussion is done verbally and no focused view is provided to better clarify the discussion.  6. Post-Meeting Documentation Issues o  A l l of the charts and tables used are posted on Buzzsaw. Even though they are created electronically, but they are scanned and image of them are available as appendices to the cost-package minutes,  o  Both the costs generated by the Construction Management and Value Engineering Team are posted on the appendices,  o  There are two items in the minutes which seem to be different of what was agreed upon on the meeting. So they are not corrected on the same meeting minutes. Instead, a revision file is uploaded to the Buzzsaw a day after.  7. Remote Access •  Provide remote access to the information discussed: data needs to be accessed from outside of the workspace specifically for the owner rep.  •  Artifacts Issue/ Remote Access to the meeting Issue: (25 min later from the beginning of the meeting, John gets on the phone, he's disconnected again)  •  Importance of Visual Remote Access: •  John Robinson is on the phone after an hour and a half from the meeting; he is asking can I ask who is on the room? It seems that there is a need to be able to visually connect to him, so that he would feel that he is in the meeting himself.  8. Intra-Group Activity o  Side talk among cost estimators: trying to come up with rough estimation for the surrounding issues with the vision wall, to perform a glass to glass comparison. Figure 1-10. An Example of Intra-Group Activity Different Types of information presentation used. The Head Value Engineer is trying to write down the design goals on the whiteboard just beside the architectural floor plans which are attached to the wall on one side of the meeting room. On the other side, 4 other elevation views are hung. 3D physical mock-up model is on the table. Lots of hand outs are around the table; on one side Value Engineers are taking notes of the things written on the whiteboard, on the other side, there is also a side-talk between mechanical engineer and mechanical contractor as they are going through mechanical cost-items on the distributed sheets.  9. Quality of Meeting/ Time Issue Liam indicated that time is lost as the meeting is proceeding but no resolve is achieved. So the mood of the conversation should change. (No decision is made so far), At the end of the meeting, A E C teams agreed that the next step would be to task the consulting team to come back with a set of proposals and recommendations to bring the cost down to target levels.  10. Information Communication: PM describes the next steps: Access to data is explained. Ron says we have to come up with design solutions not just ideas by next week. There are telephones, emails contacting soon to do the work back and forth coming up with the ideas. 11. Owner/Client expectance on predictive tasks: Client Rep is always asking with Predictive Tasks (What-if scenarios) and he expects to see answers but he is almost getting nothing. 12. Examples of Tasks 12.1 Descriptive Tasks: •  Descriptive Tasks: o  PM asks is this group committed to do this task together. And then provide a set of recommendations,  o  Descriptive Task: Who is in charge of the priorities: is it John's responsibility.  o  Descriptive Task: A l says the people who created the image and they started the fund raising are not here. But he says that he has participated in a meeting two weeks ago on the structure. The goals on the sustainability of the structure are not understandable the owner, yet it did not come out of the meeting. Ron says they can save by going to steel structure.  •  Descriptive Task:  o  Building Architect describes that they have been looking at Ancillary spaces and they explain that they think there's no need for worrying about the cost caused by the services around. He is pointing to the 3D model at the table, consideration on redistribution of services around the building. He explains he reasons of total glass. He changes the side of the 3D model to get a better view. People at this time are still trying to capture the design rationale using the 3D. The Cost estimator and value engineers are standing up beyond the architect to get a chance to look at the model. The other v/a people are still performing their calculations at the meeting and trying to capture the ideas that are discussed at the meeting.  Figure 1-11. Building Architect describes that they have been looking at Ancillary spaces and they explain that they think there's no need for worrying about the cost caused by the services around. He is pointing to the 3D model at the table, consideration on redistribution of services around the building. He explains he reasons of total glass. He changes the side of the 3D model to get a better view. People at this time are still trying to capture the design rationale using the 3D. The Cost estimator and value engineers are standing up beyond the architect to get a better view to the model. The other v/a people are still performing their calculations at the meeting and trying to capture the ideas that are discussed at the meeting.  12.2 Explanative Tasks: •  Explanative Task: What redundancy are we talking about? Blair ( M E ) is asking, and is answered by the Owner the design rationale: the case of connection to the water network. B y the design so far they are only thinking of storm water, but they are going to connect to the city system. W h y are you using such a duplicated system? Blair is mentioning that it was a project goal.  •  Explanative Task: (Owner) o  W h y the structure is this expensive? Is it the goals of the project that are driving the cost of the design itself? S E says these are the goals that are driving. (Question on design rationale), JR should realize the cost on these goals.  o  A H : H o w much of the goal are you sacrificing on sustainability goal? (15min, second part, C D 1), S E cannot answer easily. Demountability is one of the most important driving issues on the cost. The idea of taking the building apart in the future. M o v i n g wait from cast in place system. Is this goal realistic?  •  Explanative Task: Figure 1-12. Building Architect walks to the wall, tries to explain reducing the square footage in the 2D floor plan . He points to a plan on the wall. People are having difficulties to properly observe the plans  •  Explanative Task: Why do we have two service cores (north and south)? Marco Bonaventura indicated that there are "limiting distance" issues. Figure 1-13. The Building Architect is explaining the rational behind two-service course on north and south parts of the building. He is pointing to the 3D mock-up model.  * m  \s  P  i  i  *  *  -•  Mm  Figure 1-14. (Pic from CD B, at min 24:11) The mechanical contractor is asking the architect (pointing to the 3D model) why we have two service zones, with stairs each two sides of the building. What is the whole concept of the atrium? Value engineer has walked to that side of table to get a chance to clearly see the 3D mock-up model, On the other side of the room, electrical contractor has walked to the wall to check the 2D plan sketches that are attached there. Then the Mechanical Contractor stands up to clearly see the 3D model. -> InfoVis stand point.  12.3 Evaluative Tasks: •  Evaluating tasks: o  changing the design or reducing the scope  o  Owner is evaluating if 15% of the scope is reduced.  o  The question is can you do that and maintain the program!  o  P M is describing the evaluation (considered as evaluative task) that 15% might not be a right number and we should study the number.  •  Evaluative Tasks: o  Blair: W e could get rid of the fire pump altogether, along with its corresponding water storage requirements. This would also bring the cost of the emergency generator and related systems down,  o  Blair: C a n we use culverts instead of a cistern for rainwater storage?  o  Ron M c F e e suggested that we should get rid of the whole basement area, which would resolve some of the critical and costly issues of water table problems, de-watering, etc.  •  Evaluative Task: o  Whether to get rid of the whole basement versus parts of it. Ron walks to the board, he point to specific parts of the 2D sketch and he tries to explain it over the phone to John, Perhaps in a case like that having things on the smart boards can help as they can send it instantly to John and he can check it while he is away from the meeting table Figure 1-15. Ron walks to the board, he point to specific parts of the 2D sketch and he tries to explain it over the phone to John, Perhaps having a remote access to data shared at these meetings (being able at least to see the sketches) would help the John Robinson (Client Rep) to follow the discussion.  Figure 1-16. The mechanical eng describes the curtain wall using the 3D mock up model. He is discussing the research wall on the side of the building.  Evaluative Tasks: Owner evaluating if the wall should go up to the highest level • . John Robinson (OW) indicated that we can only cut so much before reaching a point where it would not be worthwhile to build CIRS as it would look as just another commercial building. • . Ron McFee (CM) indicated that commercial buildings don't normally have atriums as they are seen as not cost-effective. Blair McCarry (ME) indicated that he has seen many commercial buildings with atriums. There was consensus around the table that if 100% day- lighting is a critical design goal (and it is - confirmed by John Robinson) then the atrium is certainly a means by which that could be achieved. Al Poettcker questioned the notion of 100% day-lighting in Vancouver and whether or not that would be achievable. • . Ron McFee indicated that getting rid of the atrium would improve CIRS net-to- gross ratio. Alberto Cayuela (PM) indicated that many research facilities nowadays have net-to-gross ratios of about 1.8 and that CIRS at 1.5 was a very efficient design. Al Poettcker indicated that we need to be careful as to how net-to-gross ratio calculations are performed as there have been some instances at UBC where these ratios have been miscalculated providing misleading information. • . In terms of curtain-wall itself it was decided that ancillary spaces on the north fagade do not actually need curtain-wall at all.  • . W e need to review the clear-to-opaque ratio of the curtain wall in general as spandrel would be cheaper than the 4-element system. (Evaluation)  6. Information and representation analysis Identifying all document/presentation types available or referenced.during the meeting and whether they were presented electronically or in a hard copy format.  Form/  Temporal  Spatial  Quantitative  Symbolic  Semantic  Type Temporal Chart 2D  19.06  3D Physical Model  07:10  3D Virtual Model 4D Text Diagram Symbol Chart  16.40  Table 26:16 16:40 () number of instances that information were needed for group-activity + Measurable times spent using certain kinds of information  Cost Info  Cost Info  DD Sections /Plans  Architectural Drawings  ^  DD Sections /Plans Budget Assessment 2*2 option Budget Assessment 2*2 option  Architectural Drawings  E  —  Tables  E  Tables/Chart  Vi  o  O g  3  A  Spatial  No  The Architectural Stick-Set  -  C  Quantitative  No  E  -  VE  Quantitative  No  -  SE  Spatial  No  ^  Spatial  No  C  Semantic  No  P  3D Mock-Up Model  3D model  Architectural 3D model  ^ . A  Other  Contract  wY^f* Milestones  E  a r |  Is it Integrated? (Y/N/Unsure)  ^ Plans on meeting room wall... 6 Sections /Details on other wall  H d Sketches  A  Vi  No  details " ' 3  Representation Type 53 S atial ^  Spec  11  Produced by  Referenced but not available  Electronic or Paper  ft  3 Representation  2D C A D Drawings 2D C A D Drawings  •5' 5"  Table 1-3. Information sources and representation used in this meeting  -  1  r  Personal, not used in group activities  Project Milestones J  Personal ... Everyone P — All — U notes Total Information Types: 5(2D Drawings, 3D Model, Cost Information (Table and Chart), Contract) Total Representations: 14 (6 Plans, 4 Section/Views, 1 3D model, 1 Architectural Stick-Set, 1 Spec, 1 Project Contract) A : Architect, C: Construction Manager, V E : Value Engineering Consultant, SE: Structural Engineer J  Appendix II: Post-coding analysis results- CIRS design development and coordination meetings  2D Sketches  Design Omissions  Constructability Knowledge  Spring 2006  131  In this appendix, post-coding results sheet on eight design development meetings observed are shown.  Meeting Productivity Total Time Resolution R a t e : Resolution Productivity Average Info/Task Ratio Total Representations Total Info. Types Descriptive Time Spent 00:32:49 % Time 33% # 10 % Total 27% # Resolved 10 % Total 100% Res Task Time 00:32:49 % Res Task Time 100% Task Effectiveness 100%  77%  01:38:44  hh:mm:ss  76%  Evaluative 22%  72%  Descriptive  0.19  5 3 Evaluative 00:21:59  34%  Explanative 00:31:54  Predictive 00:12:02  22%  32%  12%  9 24% 7 78% 00:17:01 77% 78%  13 35% 10 77% 00:21:08 66% 72%  5 14% 2.5 50% 00:05:34 46% 48%  Figure II. 1: Feb 08th design development meeting post-coding analysis results sheet  Explanative 32%  Time spent on decision-making task typesFeb 08th Design Development Meeting  Meeting Productivity Total Time Resolution R a t e : Resolution Productivity Average Info/Task Ratio Total Representations Total Info. Types Descriptive Time Spent 00:43:24 % Time 43 % # 39 % Total 39% # Resolved 31.5 % Total 81% Res Task Time 00:34:05 % Res Task Time 79% Task Effectiveness 80%  71% 01:43:29  hh:mm:ss  66% 67%  0.73 Descriptive 43%  9 3  Evaluative  Explanative  Predictive  00:14:58  00:38:45  00:06:22  14 %  37 %  6%  13 13% 11 85% 00:10:19 69% 77%  36 36% 24 67% 00:31:28 81% 74%  11 11% 3.5 32% 00:02:34 40% 36%  Figure II.2: Feb 15th design development meeting post-coding analysis results sheet  Explanative 37% Predictive  6%  Time spent on decision-making task typesFeb 15th Design Development Meeting  Meeting Productivity  Total Time  71%  01:43:29  Resolution Rate:  66%  Resolution Productivity Average Info/Task Ratio Total Representations Total Info. Types Descriptive Time Spent 00:56:05 % Time 36% # 24 % Total 38% # Resolved 20.5 % Total 85% Res Task Time 00:47:22 % Res Task Time 84% Task Effectiveness 85%  67%  hh:mm:ss  Descriptive  0.73  36%  9 3  Explanative  Evaluative  Explanative  00:14:59  01:10:44  Predictive 00:13:20  10%  46%  9%  8 13% 5 63% 00:10:37 71% 67%  25 39% 19.5 78% 00:56:08 79% 79%  7 11% 4.5 64% 00:09:00 68% 66%  Figure II.3: Feb 2 2 n d design development meeting post-coding analysis results sheet  45% Predictive 9%  Time spent on decision-making task typesFeb 22nd Design Development Meeting  Meeting Productivity Total Time Resolution Rate: Resolution Productivity Average Info/Task Ratio Total Representations Total Info. Types Time Spent % Time # % Total # Resolved % Total Res Task Time % Res Task Time Task Effectiveness  Evaluative 00: 43: 25 26% 38 23% 31 82% 00:29:52 69% 75%  52% 02:50:15 hh:mm:ss 49% 45% 0.16 14 5 Explanative Predictive Predictive 01:01:08 00: 31: 09 00:13:20 36 % 18 % 9% 73 26 7 44% 16% 11% 51.5 4 4.5 71% 15% 64% 00:48:54 00:05:23 00:09:00 80% 17% 68% 75% 16% 66%  Figure II.4: Apr 05th value engineering meeting post-coding analysis results sheet  Evaluative  35%  Predictive  18%  Time spent on decision-making task typesApr 05th Value Engineering Meeting  Meeting Productivity Total Time Resolution Rate: Resolution Productivity Average Info/Task Ratio Total Representations Total Info. Types Time Spent %Time # % Total # Resolved % Total Res Task Time % Res Task Time Task Effectiveness  Evaluative 00:58:57 36% 26 39% 25 96% 00:55:04 93% 95%  77% 02:43:31 hh:mm:ss 77% 54% 1.15 10 7 Explanative Predictive 01:18:39 00:24:37 15% 48% 5 21 8% 32% 2.5 17 50% 81% 00:11:07 01:00:27 45% 77% 48% 79%  Evaluative 15%  Predictive 00:01:18 1% 14 21% 11.5 82% 00:00:00 0% 41%  Figure II.5: Apr 12th value engineering meeting post-coding analysis results sheet  Time spent on decision-making task typesApr 12th Value Engineering Meeting  Meeting Productivity Total Time Resolution Rate: Resolution Productivity Average Info/Task Ratio Total Representations Total Info. Types Time Spent % Time # % Total # Resolved % Total Res Task Time % Res Task Time Task Effectiveness  Evaluative 00:45:39 28 % 26 30% 26 100%? 00:45:39 100% 100%  90% 02:40:45 86% 87% 0.69 7 3 Explanative 00:19:19 12% 36 42% 31 86% 00:17:29 90% 88%  hh:mm:ss  Predictive 01:24:20 52 % 13 15% 11 85% 01:18:19 80% 89%  Predictive 00:11:27 7% 11 13% 8 73% 00:09:03 79% 76%  Figure II.6: Apr 19th value engineering meeting post-coding analysis results sheet  Time spent on decision-making task typesApr 19th Value Engineering Meeting  Meeting Productivity Total Time Resolution Rate: Resolution Productivity Average Info/Task Ratio Total Representations Total Info. Types Time Spent % Time # % Total # Resolved % Total Res Task Time % Res Task Time Task Effectiveness  Evaluative 00:32:49 33% 10 27% 10 100% 00:32:49 100% 94%  78% 02:38:09 hh:mm:ss 73% 72% 0.76 9 3 Explanative Predictive 00:21:59 00:31:54 22% 32% 9 13 24% 35% 7 10 78% 77% 00:17:01 00:21:08 77% 81% 49% 83%  Predictive 00:12:02 12% 5 14% 2.5 50% 00:05:34 46% 64%  Figure II.7: Feb 01st scheduling meeting post-coding analysis results sheet  Time spent on decision-making task typesFeb 01st Scheduling Meeting  Meeting Productivity Total Time Resolution Rate: Resolution Productivity Average Info/Task Ratio Total Representations Total Info. Types Time Spent % Time # % Total # Resolved % Total Res Task Time % Res Task Time Task Effectiveness  Evaluative 00:53:37 35% 34 35 % 33 97% 00:53:43 100% 99%  91 % 02:31:32 88%c 88%  hh:mm:ss Evaluative  5%  0.57  2 3 Explanative 00:07:45  Predictive 01:13:46  Predictive 00:16:24  5%  49 %  11%)  5 5%  46 %  4 80% 00:06:38 86% 83%  41.5 92% 01:09:59 95% 94%  45  14 14%  11.5 82% 00:11:28 70% 76%  Figure II.8: Apr 26th scheduling meeting post-coding analysis results sheet  Time spent on decision-making task typesApr 26th Value Engineering Meeting  Appendix III: Components of M I W  Spring 2006 140  1. Mobile Interactive Workspace Components of MIW used in this thesis are as follows: 1. Two 47" Plasma screen with touch-sensitive overlays; 2. Two dedicated high-end workstations; Data collection equipment (e.g., tablet PC's and digital remote-controlled cameras); 3. Industry-specific design and construction software (e.g., 3D and 4D CAD); 4. A control tool to manage the interactive displays; control where information is displayed and manage interactions between computers, 5. A trailer to deploy the visualization equipment during construction phase on site. During the design phase, the infrastructure is installed at the meeting workspaces and as the project goes to the construction phase, interactive workspace would be installed in the trailer on construction site Figure III-1 shows these components.  47" Plasma screens with touch-sensitive overlays  Data collection equipment (tablet PC's & digital remotecontrolled cameras)  A control tool to manage screens and computers  Figure I I I - l . Components of Mobile interactive workspace  141  A ry  f\n  2 - 4 2 " Large-screen P l a s m a Displays. Must be able to hang from the wall.  Custom-built T a b l e Outfitted with Docking Stations for Laptops wired to the Visualization Equipment  P r o p o s e d Entry W a y to keep dirt away from the Visualization Equipment  Fig III-2. Layout of Mobile Interactive Workspace in trailer  2. UBC Interactive Workspace Before setting up the MIW in CIRS project, we started to build a workspace prototype in U B C to test and perform mock up meetings. U B C Interactive Workspace is currently located in Room 2201 A, Construction Management Research Laboratory in the C E M E building on campus of University of British Columbia. Figure III-3 shows a  142  layout of how the Interactive Workspace is formed. The components of the current Interactive workspace are categorized as follows:  If'  Main Connection of Smart Boards and table with servers  Ii  o  -c  33  5 I.  4  JE"  J  Connection hubs located on top of the table and the controller in the middle  Two rear-projection touch-sensitive 67" SMART Boards with integrated projectors  Figure III-3. Layout of Interactive Workspace, UBC (Not to Scale)  1. Hardware •  Two rear-projection touch-sensitive 67" S M A R T Boards with integrated projectors  •  Interactive Table (8 connection hubs on top, each including power, video, audio, and network plugs) Touch-sensitive projector controller  •  143  • • •  Remote Keyboard and Mouse controllers Two dedicated high-end workstations Wireless network  Fig III-4. a) Interactive table and touch-sensitive projector controller, and b) Smart Boards  Current layout of Interactive Workspace breaks the space up in two sections: Control Room and Conference Room. The Conference room consists of the interactive boat-shape table, Smart boards and related accessories; on the other side, the control room includes two workstations and the wireless router. The Smart board is touch sensitive and operates as part of a system that includes the dedicated server and a digital projector positioned on the rear side. The application of Smart board enables the users to do following activities: •  Touch the surface to control software applications  •  Write or type directly on Smart board (whiteboard functionality of smart board)  •  Makes notes over top of, or input data directly into a variety of software applications  •  Save these changes in portable formats  In Interactive Workspace, server runs an application and then sends the image to the projector, then the projector assigns the image on the interactive whiteboard on top of the screen and then this whiteboard acts as the monitor and input device (mouse and/or keyboard) allowing users to control any application by simply touching the interactive whiteboard. One the user touches the interactive whiteboard; a connection would be  144  made between two layers of material. This connection point is registered by the Server as the location of the cursor is interpreted as mouse click or a mark of electronic ink and helps the user to think of interactive whiteboard as an input device to the sever, just like a mouse or a keyboard.  1.1. Smart board through touch-sensitive projector controller The access to turning on/off projectors is through the touch-sensitive projector controller. To start the Smart boards, fist the controller should be finger-touched (Fig. III.5-a). This screen consists of 4 different sections: Screen 1 and 2 connections, project controllers and system on/off. As observed in fig III-5-b, eight notebooks and two dedicated servers can be connected to each screen through connection hub displayed (fig III-5-c), so there is a possibly of having both servers on each screen, laptops on screens or any possible combination.  Fig II-5. a) Smart Board touch-sensitive projector controller; b) Screen displays and c) connection hub on interactive table Now that the system is on, to have screens on the smart boards, projector controller could be touched (fig III-6-a). As shown, each screen has its own controller, which can be turned on/off. To shut down all the system, there is a "system off" function (Fig III-6-b). The connections of workstations and Smart boards are directed through cables located near the wall side of the workstation in a fashion that the left workstation is dedicated to the left smart board and the same situation exists for the other smart board. Besides the table and all the hubs on  145  top of it are designed and can be connected so that if a laptop is brought to the table, it can be connected to the left side, annotation would be possible on the same side Smart board, however it would be possible to show the laptop screen on the other smart board using the projector controller but if annotation is needed on that screen as well, some technical software support should be available which is described in next sections. The best application for the Interactive workspace performance is to transport data to one of the servers and have the file/presentation/annotation done through the server.  1.2. Orienting the Smart Board Interactive Whiteboard To adjust the server/laptop screen to the smart board, interactive whiteboard should be oriented during the set up, or with a new change to the projector or interactive whiteboard. Currently the best resolution to have on each Smart board is 1024x780 and it is already pre-oriented; however, to orient the screen, both pen tray buttons should be pressed and held simultaneously until the orientation interface appears. There is a software approach for orienting the screens, which is mentioned in smart tools section. Orientation begins at the upper-left corner.  The centre of each red-cross should be  pressed vertically in the order indicated.  Fig III-7. Orientation of Smart board Interactive Whiteboard with monitor resolution  1.3. How to mouse the Smart board A press on a Smart Board interactive whiteboard is the same as a left-click with a mouse. To open an application such as an Internet browser, users can simply doublepress the application with his/her finger.  1.4. Writing and Erasing Notes To write over your desktop image or application, user can pick up one of the pens from the pen tray and write on the interactive whiteboard. The user is supported with  146  colour pens. The colour recognition comes from the optical sensors in the pen-tray slots and not from the pens themselves. Erasing is done with the eraser from the pen tray. Interactive whiteboard only recognizes the last tool removed from the pen tray. For instance, if user already has a pen in his/her hand when picks up the eraser, the interactive whiteboard will assume user want to erase, regardless of whether user touch the board with a pen or an eraser. To avoid confusion, each tool should be returned to its proper slot when application is finished.  2. Software Soft wares that are currently used in high-end servers mainly fall into two categories of smart board tools and professional application:  2.1. S m a r t B o a r d tools  Notebook.,. Recorder...  To access Smart board tools, user can choose Smart board  Video Player.,, Keyboard.,.  icon in the Microsoft Windows notification area at the bottom  Floating Tools... Start Center...  right of your screen shown on the picture. The Smart board tools  s g  will appear.  Other SMART Tools • Control Panel... Orient,,. Check for Updates,., Help...  The other option to see the Smart board icon is to select (75 Start>Programs>Smart  board SoftwaroSmart  2  Exit  board Tools. Then Smart board  icon would be shown in the Windows notification Area. All options provided in Smart board tools are graphically available through Start Centre; and as it is the most frequently used Smart board features and applications with the Start Centre, therefore first Starting Centre is introduced: There are eight buttons on the default Start Centre toolbar. Seven of the buttons are set to launch commonly used applications. The "More button" allows users to customize the Start Centre to do what works best for them. Hence, five out of seven of these features are available through Smart board tools mentioned above.  147  Using the Smart board tools: The options available from Smart board tools are outlined below. The touch sensitivity of the whiteboard allows user to operate each of these tools with finger-touch.  ' »"§™3  Notebook: Save notes written on a S M A R T Board interactive whiteboard or at your desktop as a series of pages. Import graphics, text and Macromedia  Flash content into your Notebook file. Export Notebook file in H T M L , PDF or images file formats. The Notebook toolbar gives users access to a number of tools for working with Notebook file and changing the properties of objects in the file. By default, the toolbar appears at the top of the Notebook page. Below, a quick reference to Notebook toolbar is provided.  I: •  a* U  Button  •  EJ  # j,<9 <?'X *] i$ Li E :  S  GB  [FM- V  -  t> •  \ - p > H * 1 ^ 9 41V  Use this tool to...  Button  Use this tool to...  C r e a t e a n e w blank N o t e b o o k file  •  L a u n c h the C a p t u r e toolbar. T h e C a p t u r e toolbar is d e s c r i b e d below  O p e n a N o t e b o o k file  S e l e c t a n y object o n the p a g e  S a v e y o u r file  Write or d r a w o n a N o t e b o o k p a g e with the p e n tool  P a s t e clipboard object(s) into a Notebook file  Write or d r a w o n a N o t e b o o k p a g e with the creative pen tool  /  Zoom  E r a s e annotations on a N o t e b o o k p a g e  *>  Undo the last action y o u performed  y  Q  \  D r a w a line  R e d o the last action y o u performed  X Si 1 .4  Create a shape  Delete a n y s e l e c t e d object(s)  SI  C r e a t e a text-entry box for typing on a Notebook p a g e  Display the previous Notebook p a g e  %  Set the current color of a tool, s h a p e or object  Display the next N o t e b o o k page Insert a blank p a g e immediately after the active page  Select the line width of a tool or a s e l e c t e d object  m  S h o w / h i d e the s c r e e n s h a d e  Set the t r a n s p a r e n c y of a tool or s e l e c t e d object  Select the line properties of a tool or a s e l e c t e d object  L a u n c h full s c r e e n view  The Capture Toolbar The Capture toolbar allows users to capture a picture of a portion of a screen, a window or a full screen to a Notebook page. To access the Screen Capture toolbar, the Capture button on the  •0 0  P P P *1 Save to new new page save  Notebook toolbar should be pressed. The screen capture toolbar consists of three items  148  capturing a portion of screen, a portion of an active window and/or entire screen. The following table summarizes these items. M e n u Item  Select this m e n u item to... C a p t u r e a portion of a screen. Press and drag diagonally to outline the area y o u w a n t to capture. Release pressure o n c e the area is selected. Your capture will be saved to a Notebook p a g e .  Capture a n active window or a portion of an active window. Press within the w i n d o w you w a n t t o capture. Release pressure o n c e the desired w i n d o w appears as a hatched area. Your capture will b e s a v e d t o a Notebook page.  Capture the entire screen. Set up your screen the w a y y o u w o u l d like it to look. T h e n press t h e Capture Screen button. Your capture will be saved to a Notebook page.  The captured image will appear on a new page in the current Notebook file. If the captured image is meant to appear on the current page, the Save to new page check box can be deselected. Capturing images is done in two ways: either print capturing the image or saving in Smart notebook format and exporting the file in a portable format. Print Capture option is used to capture an image of all the information in a current document. Pages or an entire file from another application, e.g. Microsoft Word can be added into a Notebook file. Print Capture feature is quite similar to printing to paper. In order to print capture the image, following steps are taken: •  User first opens the file, which wants to be captured.  •  FiloPrint  and then Smart Notebook Print Capture is selected from the list of  available printers. •  The page range to capture (i.e., all pages, the current page or a defined page range) is captured and OK button is pressed.  •  Each page of the document would appear on a separate page in Notebook file.  149  Properties  of SMART Notebook Print Capture \\caldd ,smarttech.inc\Order Processing PCL6 ^\\caldd\CI-Training 1 PCL 6 ^ \ \ c a l d d \ p d f F a c t o r y Pro  Find Printer... F I  List of available printers  Print to fie Manual duplex  iMumoer or c.optes:  Page range F? Collate numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12  -  Print »4iat:  |Docjment  Prmt:  JAIt pages in range  Zoom  ••• "1  Pages per sheet: 11 page Scale to paper sige:  JNo Scaling  Options.,  Cancel  The other method to capture images is to save them in Smart Notebook file formats. The  standard way to save the notes that is captured in Notebook software is as a  Notebook xbk file. In order to edit the file using the features in Notebook software, user must first save it in this format. Notes are saved in a variety of formats that are described below: Notebook file can be exported as a series of H T M L pages, image files or a PDF. Each Notebook page is exported as a separate file or PDF page. Now without Notebook software, Notebook content can be viewed on other desktops. To save a Notebook file in a different file format, FiloExport (PDF, H T M L , Images) is selected and the export dialog would be complete. HTML  EXDOrt Export as type: Size of images: Directory  — — — -  ||QHHHBBI Page Size  v  *  v  ,  PNG GIF BMP  ^  ! C:\Documents and Settings\asmith\Desktop\ Screen Size 1024x768 800 x 600 640 x 480 400 x 300 200 x I S O  Scheduled Export 0  [11SHHHHHHHHIIIHH1 JPGS  Automatically Export Frequency:  [  OK  |  |  Cancel  ] |  Help  [  To facilitate saving Notebook pages that are used frequently, e.g. timeline and/or agenda, they can be saved as templates so user can edit or change. First, notebook page is  150  chosen. User should select File>  Save Page as template. From the dialog box, the  location to save the file is chosen. When the same template is used, the objects will have the same properties user you gave them when s/he saved the page. It is also easy to use a template in a new Notebook file. First a new Notebook file is created. File>New selected. From file menu, Insert>Picture/Template>  is  is chosen, and the template is  selected. Then a new Notebook page would be opened.  P.!  Recorder: Record everything that happens on the interactive whiteboard, regardless of which application is being used. Smart Recorder also allows  users to record audio through a microphone and automatically combines audio and data into one file for playback on any computer. IB  Smart Recorder creates this file into AVI format however it is able  Menu -  0:00:00  to play and/or share the file once the recording is finished. This i \ mm  m  feature allows users to capture an audio/video of the whole meeting  presentations and annotation made but it should be considered that AVI files are big in size; therefore, other applications should be used to modify the file format to a more intense captured video.  •  Video Player: The advantage of using Smart Video Player in comparison to other players is that  user is capable of writing and/or drawing over video during a presentation. The feature that this video player presents is that it allows the annotations to fade while the video is playing,  so  that while  the  movie is  playing, more  >  Q  x  a «,  annotations can be made and start and continue of the annotations are controllable through the options of this software. It is also noted that these annotations can be saved using the Smart Recorder. Having said that, the user is also capable of using Smart Video Player to play video files located on server or view content from a camera, V C R , C D - R O M or DVDs. In addition, S M A R T Video Player is compatible with most video cameras, projectors, scanners and document cameras.  151  •  Keyboard: Smart Keyboard allows users to type or edit text in any application without leaving the whiteboard. Smart keyboards come in  different formats including classic, number pad, write, shortcut, simple and simple caps keyboards. The interesting feature in Smart keyboard is that it allows user to convert their handwritings into typed text and it can be used in any software application. •Kilt  H^^ffr^llllTriffillllllllllHWll Settings  Classic E,c  !  1  *  *2  3  S  4  fcj|qwe  % » t„ * , ( , ) „ _ .• : ^ t  y u  1 o  O a s d l g h j k l Vf Fn  \  z  Ctrl  ®  i  x  c  Wu tau.ti Write  4  s  r  v b  Alt  n  p  (  *-•  ; :  m * , * Alt  "  0«  • '( o  Q. H  Ctrl  Settings  flecogolie ••: O Capta isl  | ' | J \  O Numbesr  ® No PrecfreBce  i ^ 4-1 «—  Bnd rgwi |  t «-  +  ->  Floating tools: The floating tools augment the options already available through the pen tray, placing the features users most literally utilize during meetings. This flexible toolbar floats over any open application on the smart board. Once user picks up a pen from the Smart Pen tray, floating toolbar would be launched automatically. Initially, only two buttons are displayed on the floating toolbar, i.e. the area capture button and the undo button. Simply by pressing the arrow on the right of the toolbar, expanded default toolbar would be seen. Another way to launch the floating toolbar is to press Smart board icon in Windows notification area at the bottom right of the screen and then select floating tools. Bonus features of using floating toolbar are: 1) capability of moving the floating toolbar anywhere on the desktop by simply dragging it to move; and 2) the feature that enables customization of the floating toolbar. Small floating toolbar  Extended floating toolbar -1Z  9 Features that are available through floating toolbar are summarized in the following table:  152  Button  Use this tool to... Capture an area of the screen into Notebook™ software Stop using other tools and return cursor to mouse mode  V  Write or draw in digital ink Highlight an area of the screen with translucent ink for emphasis without overwriting the object Undo your previous action. This tool toggles between two states, Undo and Redo. Redo an action you cleared in error. This is the second of the two states mentioned above.  p—  Erase digital ink Make your next press on the interactive whiteboard a right-click Open the drop-down menu to personalize toolbar functions  There are some applications that they might be Ink aware, meaning that once a pen is picked up, floating tools toolbar does not appear on the screen such as Microsoft Word and/or Excel. Hence, in Ink aware applications as such, these features are available in application's toolbar. As the user is already able to write or draw over these applications without tools from floating tool toolbar, therefore it does not appear on the screen. In this situation that the application is Ink aware, whatever user writes and/or draws on the interactive software, would be incorporated as an actual component of the file, rather than an external note created over the file. The smart toolbar appearing on the Ink aware software originally consists of three buttons as shown in the picture each of them functions as follows: I& ?N  -  Smart toolbar appearing on the Ink aware software  This button allows users to insert notes as an image directly into your Microsoft Word document. This button allows user to convert his/her handwriting or printing to typed text directly into Microsoft Word document. Words will appear at the cursor point in the colour the words were written in.  CM  This button allows user to capture an image of the screen into Notebook software.  153  If in Microsoft Word, these features are off, in order to activate them the following procedure should be performed: View>Toolbars>SMART aware toolbar  Control option,  Panel: capable  Applying the  users  this to  configure a variety of software and hardware  • n  •a I  atART  Bntird  MUMI  Grietil / Wtqn the SjMARI Board  options. From here, user can administer Smart board settings, orient Smart board,  •  • Mt?Mn*  3  personalize the pen tray, connect to a new Smart board interactive whiteboard, and manage Ink Aware applications, languages and wireless connections. Smart control panel options consist of: a) Smart board settings: Provides information on hardware info and settings, orientation/alignment settings, mouse settings, arrange video output, advance settings (Board Axis settings and DViT setting), pen and button settings, display control settings and set up icon strips, b) Ink aware application settings: provides users with the choice weather Ink aware toolbar would be an appropriate tool in specific soft wares (includes office soft wares), c)  Orient/Align Smart board, d) Smart Board Software  Language settings, e) Smart board connection wizard: sets connections of smart products to servers, Orient/Align smart products and adjusts the projected picture, f) Mobile and wireless device settings: allows mobile device manager using wireless connection (Wireless router), sharing desktop views using LinQ software and even remote control from a PDA. g) Pen and button settings and h) Product support.  Customizing Start Centre: Using this option, user is able to add tools or I• • • j  applications to the Start Centre to customize working at Smart board interactive  whiteboard. Below, a graphical presentation on how to customize the start centre is provided.  154  Press Add to move a selected Available Tool to tlie Current Toolbar  Press Remove to take a tool off the Current Toolbar  Change the order of the Current Toolbar  Customize Start Center Available Tools  Current Toolbar  Calculatoi Select a tool  m  Magnifier Pointet Tool  g  < infaimg Sail r.sntsf  Notebook  Recorder  Video Player  Screen Shade  G  Keyboard  Spotlight  —  Floating Tools  ;  Orbrfc SMART Hooti.  Control Panel  Abau: Start C * n t « .. CltfflcSsoft Center  Help  More Button  V  (Restore Default^ ||f^5tomee V i e w ^  Press to restore Start Center to the original configuration  Press to change the Start Center icon size and the transparency of the toolbar  Press to find and add an application not listed in Available Tools  Press to accept changes  Press to reject changes  2.2. Professional Applications Professional applications used in Interactive workspace are applications commonly used by architects, engineers and/or contractor. Computer aided design application such as Autodesk Architectural Desktop, Revit Building, AutoCAD, Autodesk Building Systems among those utilized for architectural and/or engineering purposed and Autodesk Building Systems, and Navisworks for conflict detection uses are the commonly used software applications. 4D C A D applications such as Navisworks and/or Common point 4D are among the other types of applications which might be used in the MIW on site.  3. References S M A R T Technologies website (2006); http://www.smarttech.com/, last visited Jan 2006 S M A R T Board Interactive Whiteboard Learner Workbook (2005), pp. 1-76.  155  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0063255/manifest

Comment

Related Items