A collaborative design environment makes assumptions about how the designers communicate and represent their design ideas. These assumptions, including the availability of sketching, 3D modelling, and walking around virtual worlds with avatars, effectively make some actions easier and others more difficult. An analysis of design behaviour in different virtual environments can highlight the impact and benefits of the different tools/environments and their assumptions. This paper reports on a study of three pairs of designers collaborating on design tasks of similar complexity using a different design environment for each task: face to face sketching, remote sketching, and 3D virtual world. Comparing the behaviour patterns and design actions we conclude that the characteristics of design process are quite different in sketching and 3D world environments. While sketching, the architects more frequently moved between the problem and solution spaces, dealing with analysis and synthesis of ideas. The same architects focused on synthesis of the objects, visually analysing the representation, and managing the tasks to model the design when they were in the 3D virtual world.


Virtual World Design Environment Collaborative Design External Representation Design Thinking 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Akin, Ö: 1986, Psychology of Architectural Design, Pion, London.Google Scholar
  2. Akin, Ö and Lin CC: 1995, Design protocol data and novel design decision, Design Studies 16: 221–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Candy, L, Bilda, Z, Maher, ML and Gero, JS: 2004, Evaluating software support for video data capture and analysis in collaborative design studies, Proceedings of QualIT04 Conference, Brisbane, Australia (CD-Rom, no page numbers).Google Scholar
  4. Cross, N, Christiaans H and Dorst K (eds): 1996, Analysing Design Activity, John Wiley, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
  5. Dwarakanath, S, and Blessing, L: 1996, The design process ingredients: A comparison between group and individual work, in N Cross, H Christiaans, and K Doorst (eds) Analysing Design Activity, John Wiley, Chicester,West Sussex, pp. 93–116.Google Scholar
  6. Finke RA, Ward, TB and Smith, SM: 1992, Creative Cognition: Theory, Research and Application, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  7. Gero, JS and McNeill, TM: 1998, An approach to the analysis of design protocols, Design Studies 19: 21–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kvan, T: 2000, Collaborative design:What is it?, Automation in Construction 9(4): 409–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lawson, B: 1990, How Designers Think, London, Boston, Butterworth Architecture.Google Scholar
  10. Maher, ML, Bilda, Z and Marchant, D: 2005a, Comparing collaborative design behaviour in remote sketching and 3D virtual worlds, Proceedings of International Workshop on Human Behaviour in Designing, Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition, University of Sydney, pp. 3–26.Google Scholar
  11. Maher, ML, Bilda, Z, Gül, LF and Marchant, D: 2005b, Studying design collaboration in virtual worlds, in JS Gero and N Bonnardel (eds) Studying Designers′05, Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition, University of Sydney, pp. 291–305.Google Scholar
  12. Munkvold, BE: 2003, Implementing Collaboration Technologies in Industry: Case Examples and Lessons Learned, Springer-Verlag, London Ltd.Google Scholar
  13. Stempfle, J and Badke-Schaub P: 2002, Thinking in design teams- An analysis of team communication, Design Studies 23: 473–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Suwa, M and Tversky, B: 1997, What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis, Design Studies 18(4): 385–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Suwa, M, Purcell, T and Gero, JS: 1998, Macroscopic analysis of design processes based on a scheme for coding designers’ cognitive actions, Design Studies 19(4): 455–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

    • 1
    • 1
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of SydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations