{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018878400888395337, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.355102040816327, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
An experimental methodology for investigating communication in collaborative design review meetings

Product design teams, composed of individuals with diverse expertise, communicate continually throughout the realization process, especially during formal collaborative design reviews. Individuals with the required expertise for conducting design reviews may be distributed in different geographic locations requiring either expensive travel or new communication tools to simulate onsite collaborative communication. This paper presents the methods and results of a controlled user study devised to examine the effectiveness of various communication methods for design reviews. Speech-only, text-only, and face-to-face communication methods were chosen to simulate current technologies commonly used in situations of geographic distribution: phone conference, text chat, and onsite meetings, respectively. Primary results from the study include the following: group design reviews in all modes of communication were approximately twice as effective as individual design reviews; face-to-face communication produced a greater perceived effectiveness than speech-only communication; and speech-only communication produced a greater perceived effectiveness than text-only communication. Despite this participant self-reported perceived effectiveness, there was no statistically significant difference between the measured effectiveness of conducting design reviews under different communication-mode scenarios. Review effectiveness was evaluated by a quantitative measure of the number of flaws, non-conformance to the specified requirements that are identified and documented by the design review team. These flaws were intentionally integrated into the product to be reviewed for experimental control.