Multidisciplinary Engineering Science Open

Exploring Engineers’ Experiences of Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Multidisciplinary Engineering Projects: A Qualitative Study

Pouya Nouri ^* , Yalda Asadi

This study aimed to explore engineers’ lived experiences of interdisciplinary collaboration in multidisciplinary engineering projects and to identify the relational, communicative, organizational, and learning processes that shape effective cross-disciplinary work. This qualitative study was conducted using a conventional thematic analysis approach. Participants were 24 engineers working in multidisciplinary engineering projects in Tehran, Iran. They were selected through purposive sampling to ensure variation in engineering discipline, professional experience, organizational role, and project type. Data were collected exclusively through semi-structured interviews, each lasting approximately 45–75 minutes. Interviews focused on participants’ experiences of working with engineers and professionals from other disciplines, perceived facilitators and barriers to collaboration, communication practices, conflict management, leadership support, and learning outcomes. Data collection continued until theoretical saturation was achieved. All interviews were audio-recorded with participants’ consent, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using NVivo software. The analysis followed iterative coding, category development, constant comparison, memo writing, and theme refinement. Five main categories emerged from the analysis: negotiating disciplinary languages and mental models; coordination through boundary objects and integrative routines; relational trust and psychological safety; leadership and project governance as collaboration scaffolds; and interdisciplinary learning and professional identity development. Participants described interdisciplinary collaboration as both necessary and challenging. While disciplinary diversity improved problem-solving and project innovation, it also created misunderstandings, delays, jargon-related confusion, and conflicts over priorities. Effective collaboration depended on shared project goals, early clarification of roles, structured coordination meetings, use of common design documents, respectful communication, and leaders who actively mediated disciplinary boundaries. The findings suggest that interdisciplinary collaboration in engineering projects is not merely a technical process but a socially negotiated practice requiring communication competence, trust, boundary-crossing capacity, integrative leadership, and reflective learning. Multidisciplinary projects benefit when organizations create formal and informal structures that enable engineers to translate disciplinary knowledge, manage conflict constructively, and develop shared ownership of complex project outcomes.

Engineers’ Perceptions of Sustainable Design Practices in Complex Engineering Systems

Narges Yeganeh ^*

This study aimed to explore how engineers working in Tehran perceive, interpret, and implement sustainable design practices in complex engineering systems. A qualitative research design was employed to examine engineers’ lived professional experiences of sustainable design in multidisciplinary engineering contexts. Twenty engineers from Tehran were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling. Participants had professional experience in civil, mechanical, electrical, industrial, software/systems, chemical, environmental, and infrastructure-related engineering fields. Data were collected exclusively through semi-structured interviews, each lasting approximately 45–75 minutes. Interview questions focused on participants’ understanding of sustainability, design decision-making, trade-off management, organizational constraints, stakeholder expectations, use of sustainability tools, and perceived barriers to sustainable engineering practice. Interviews continued until theoretical saturation was reached. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis with the support of NVivo software. Analysis generated five main categories: life-cycle and systems thinking, sustainability as a technical design criterion, trade-off management under complexity, organizational and project-level enablers, and tool/data limitations in sustainable engineering practice. Engineers generally perceived sustainable design as more than environmental protection, emphasizing long-term performance, resource efficiency, maintainability, risk reduction, social responsibility, and economic feasibility. However, participants reported that sustainability was often weakened by cost pressure, fragmented project governance, limited client commitment, insufficient local data, and late-stage integration into design processes. Sustainable design was most feasible when sustainability requirements were embedded early, supported by multidisciplinary collaboration, and translated into measurable engineering criteria. The findings suggest that engineers recognize sustainable design as a necessary professional responsibility in complex engineering systems, but its implementation depends on early systems-level integration, organizational support, credible assessment tools, and alignment between technical, economic, environmental, and social objectives.

A Qualitative Exploration of Decision-Making Processes in Multidisciplinary Engineering Innovation

Sina Rahimi ^* , Pegah Kamali

This study aimed to explore how multidisciplinary engineering teams make innovation-related decisions under conditions of technical uncertainty, disciplinary diversity, organizational constraint, and market-oriented pressure. This qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with 24 participants from Tehran-based engineering and technology-oriented organizations. Participants included senior engineers, project managers, R&D specialists, product development experts, innovation managers, and technical consultants who had direct experience in multidisciplinary engineering innovation projects. Purposeful sampling was used to recruit information-rich participants, and data collection continued until theoretical saturation was achieved after the twenty-first interview, followed by three additional interviews to confirm thematic stability. Interviews were conducted face-to-face or online, lasted 45–75 minutes, and focused on participants’ experiences of innovation decision-making, cross-disciplinary coordination, technical evaluation, conflict resolution, risk assessment, and implementation choices. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis with the support of NVivo software. Analysis produced five main categories: shared problem framing across disciplinary boundaries, evidence-based negotiation under uncertainty, distributed authority and decision ownership, iterative experimentation and risk balancing, and organizational alignment with innovation value. The findings showed that multidisciplinary engineering decisions were rarely linear or purely technical. Instead, participants described decision-making as an interactive process shaped by translation between disciplinary logics, negotiation over evidence, informal influence, prototype-based learning, and organizational expectations regarding cost, feasibility, timing, and market relevance. The study concludes that effective decision-making in multidisciplinary engineering innovation depends on the team’s ability to create shared interpretive spaces, combine analytical and experiential knowledge, clarify decision authority, tolerate controlled experimentation, and align technical novelty with organizational value. These findings contribute to engineering innovation literature by showing how decision-making operates as a socio-technical and negotiated practice rather than a purely rational selection process.

Challenges of Communication Across Engineering Disciplines: A Qualitative Inquiry

Farshad Amiri ^*

This study aimed to explore the major communication challenges experienced by engineers working across disciplinary boundaries in multidisciplinary engineering projects. A qualitative inquiry design was used to examine how engineers from different disciplinary backgrounds interpret, negotiate, and manage communication challenges in collaborative project environments. Participants were selected through purposive sampling from engineering firms, consulting companies, construction projects, technology organizations, and industrial project teams in Tehran, Iran. Data were collected through semi-structured individual interviews with 22 engineers representing civil, mechanical, electrical, software/computer, industrial, and chemical/process engineering disciplines. Interviews continued until theoretical saturation was reached, with saturation identified after the twentieth interview and confirmed through two additional interviews. All interviews were audio-recorded with participant consent, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis. NVivo software was used to organize transcripts, develop initial codes, compare emerging categories, and support systematic retrieval of coded segments. Analysis generated five main categories: disciplinary language and epistemic framing, ambiguity at technical interfaces, coordination pressure under time and hierarchy, fragmentation of digital communication tools, and relational trust and boundary-spanning competence. Participants reported that communication problems often emerged not from unwillingness to collaborate but from differences in terminology, design assumptions, risk priorities, documentation habits, and expectations regarding decision authority. Cross-disciplinary misunderstanding was most visible at interfaces between design, implementation, safety, software, and project management functions. The findings suggest that communication across engineering disciplines is a socio-technical process shaped by professional language, disciplinary identity, organizational routines, project constraints, and the quality of boundary-spanning practices. Improving interdisciplinary communication requires more than formal meetings or documentation templates; it requires shared interpretive spaces, explicit interface management, translation-oriented leadership, and a project culture that supports questioning, clarification, and mutual learning.

Exploring Professional Identity Formation Among Engineers Working in Multidisciplinary Environments

Babak Ghasemi , Shadi Farhadi ^*

This study aimed to explore how engineers working in multidisciplinary organizational environments construct, negotiate, and sustain their professional identity through daily interactions with diverse occupational groups. A qualitative research design was used to examine engineers’ lived and interpreted experiences of professional identity formation. The participants were 24 engineers working in multidisciplinary project environments in Tehran, Iran. Participants were selected through purposive sampling based on their direct involvement in projects requiring collaboration with professionals from different disciplinary backgrounds, including management, architecture, finance, information technology, environmental science, and regulatory affairs. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews lasting 45 to 75 minutes. Interviews continued until theoretical saturation was achieved. All interviews were audio-recorded with participants’ consent, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis. NVivo software was used to organize transcripts, assign codes, compare categories, and develop final themes. The analysis generated five main categories: negotiating technical expertise within collaborative work, translating engineering knowledge across disciplinary boundaries, seeking recognition and legitimacy in multidisciplinary teams, integrating ethical and social responsibility into engineering identity, and developing a hybrid professional self. Participants described professional identity formation as a dynamic process shaped not only by technical competence but also by communication, boundary work, organizational recognition, and the ability to align engineering judgment with broader social, economic, and environmental expectations. The findings suggest that engineers in multidisciplinary settings form their professional identities through continuous negotiation between disciplinary expertise and collaborative adaptability. Professional identity was strengthened when engineers experienced recognition, meaningful participation, ethical agency, and opportunities to translate technical knowledge for non-engineering stakeholders. Organizations should support identity development by creating inclusive project cultures, clarifying professional roles, and valuing both technical and relational dimensions of engineering practice.

Engineers’ Perspectives on Ethical Challenges in Emerging Multidisciplinary Technologies: A Qualitative Study

Saman Bagheri ^*

This study aimed to explore engineers’ perspectives on the ethical challenges encountered in the design, development, and implementation of emerging multidisciplinary technologies. This qualitative study was conducted using a conventional thematic analysis approach. Participants were 24 engineers working in technology-driven, research-based, and multidisciplinary organizations in Tehran, Iran. Participants were selected through purposive sampling to include engineers with direct experience in emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, robotics, biomedical engineering, nanotechnology, smart infrastructure, renewable energy systems, and data-driven industrial systems. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews lasting 45–75 minutes. Interviews continued until theoretical saturation was reached after the twenty-first interview, followed by three additional interviews to confirm saturation. All interviews were audio-recorded with informed consent, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using NVivo software. Coding proceeded through open coding, category development, constant comparison, and theme refinement. Credibility was strengthened through member checking, peer review, and maintaining an audit trail. Thematic analysis generated five main categories: ethical uncertainty and anticipatory responsibility; distributed accountability in multidisciplinary collaboration; privacy, data justice, and algorithmic opacity; tension between public welfare and commercial or institutional pressure; and the need for embedded ethical governance. Participants emphasized that ethical challenges often emerged before technical consequences were fully visible and were intensified by fragmented responsibility across disciplines. Engineers also reported difficulty translating abstract ethical principles into practical design decisions under time, budget, and market pressures. The findings indicate that ethical engineering in emerging multidisciplinary technologies requires more than individual professional morality. It demands anticipatory thinking, interdisciplinary accountability, transparent design processes, stakeholder inclusion, and institutional mechanisms that integrate ethics into the full technology lifecycle. Strengthening ethical governance can help engineers address uncertainty, reduce harm, and support socially responsible innovation.

A Qualitative Investigation of Innovation Management in Multidisciplinary Engineering Organizations

Vahid Taheri , Nasrin Poursina ^*

This study aimed to explore how innovation is managed, coordinated, and sustained in multidisciplinary engineering organizations operating in Tehran. This qualitative study was conducted using a conventional thematic analysis approach. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 24 participants working in multidisciplinary engineering organizations in Tehran, including senior engineering managers, R&D specialists, project managers, systems engineers, design engineers, and technical consultants. Participants were selected through purposive sampling based on direct experience with innovation projects, interdisciplinary collaboration, product or process development, and engineering project implementation. Interviews continued until theoretical saturation was achieved. Each interview lasted between 45 and 75 minutes and was audio-recorded with informed consent. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s six-phase thematic analysis procedure. NVivo software was used to support data organization, coding, category development, retrieval of coded segments, and comparison of themes across participant groups. Trustworthiness was enhanced through member checking, peer debriefing, audit trail documentation, and researcher reflexivity. Data analysis generated five main categories: strategic framing of innovation, cross-disciplinary knowledge integration, structural and procedural support for innovation, leadership and cultural enablers, and barriers to implementation and commercialization. Participants described innovation as a process shaped by both technical creativity and organizational coordination. Effective innovation management required alignment between engineering expertise, market needs, resource allocation, managerial support, and interdepartmental communication. While multidisciplinary teams expanded the range of ideas and technical solutions, they also created challenges related to language differences, professional boundaries, slow decision-making, and conflict over priorities. Innovation management in multidisciplinary engineering organizations is not limited to idea generation or technical problem-solving; rather, it depends on the organization’s ability to integrate specialized knowledge, create flexible structures, support experimentation, and translate technical concepts into implementable outcomes. The findings suggest that engineering organizations should strengthen boundary-spanning roles, collaborative routines, innovation governance, and leadership practices that connect technical excellence with strategic and commercial value.

Barriers to Implementing Sustainable Engineering Solutions in Multidisciplinary Contexts: A Qualitative Study of Engineering Professionals in Tehran

Navid Sadeghi ^*

This study aimed to explore the major barriers that hinder the implementation of sustainable engineering solutions in multidisciplinary project contexts from the perspectives of engineering professionals, project managers, sustainability consultants, and public-sector technical experts in Tehran. A qualitative descriptive design was adopted. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 24 participants selected through purposive maximum-variation sampling from engineering consulting firms, construction and infrastructure companies, environmental advisory units, energy-related organizations, and municipal technical bodies in Tehran. Participants had direct experience in designing, managing, evaluating, or implementing sustainable engineering solutions across multidisciplinary projects. Interviews continued until theoretical saturation was reached, which occurred after the twenty-first interview; three additional interviews were conducted to confirm conceptual adequacy. Interviews were audio-recorded with permission, transcribed verbatim, anonymized, and analyzed using thematic analysis. NVivo software was used to organize transcripts, develop initial codes, compare patterns across participant groups, and construct final categories. Analysis generated five main categories of implementation barriers: fragmented disciplinary logics and weak cross-functional communication; economic and procurement constraints; regulatory ambiguity and institutional inertia; limited sustainability knowledge, data, and lifecycle assessment capacity; and stakeholder misalignment, risk perception, and weak accountability. Participants emphasized that sustainable engineering solutions often fail not because of technical impossibility, but because engineering, financial, managerial, legal, and social actors evaluate project success through different criteria. High initial costs, short-term budgeting, uncertain incentives, fragmented approval procedures, limited access to reliable lifecycle data, and insufficient client demand weakened implementation. Sustainable engineering implementation in multidisciplinary contexts requires more than technical design competence. It depends on integrated governance, lifecycle-based evaluation, interdisciplinary communication, supportive regulations, financial incentives, stakeholder engagement, and organizational accountability. The findings suggest that sustainable engineering should be embedded into project planning, procurement, education, and performance evaluation systems rather than treated as an optional design feature.

Multidisciplinary Engineering Science Open

About the Journal

Current Issue

Articles

TinyML on the Edge: Model Compression, On-Device Learning, and Energy–Latency Trade-Offs

Exascale CFD/CSM Coupling: Partitioned vs. Monolithic Solvers, Load Balancing, and I/O at Scale

RISC-V in Safety-Critical Embedded Systems: Hardware/Software Co-Design and Assurance Cases

Secure IoT Stacks for Critical Infrastructure: Protocols, TEEs, and Post-Quantum Readiness

Connected and Automated Vehicles in Mixed Traffic: Sensing, V2X, and Traffic Flow Stability

Smart Railways: Predictive Maintenance, Digital Twins, and Energy-Aware Operations

Urban Air Mobility Integration: Airspace Management, Noise Footprints, and Ground Infrastructure

Scientific Machine Learning for PDEs: Operators, Surrogates, and Error-Controlled Multi-Fidelity Schemes

Uncertainty Quantification in High-Dimensional Engineering: Polynomial Chaos, Bayesian Inference, and Active Learning

https://jmesopen.com/index.php/jmesopen/workflow/index/38/5#publication/contributors

Surrogate-Assisted Global Optimization for Expensive Engineering Systems: From Trust Regions to Bayesian Optimization

Multi-Objective Design under Sustainability Constraints: From Pareto Fronts to Planetary Boundaries

Evolving Leadership Capabilities in Digitally Transforming Organizations: A Qualitative Study of Senior Managers’ Experiences

How Adaptive Leadership Shapes Organizational Resilience During Strategic Change: A Qualitative Inquiry

Leadership Sensemaking in Complex Management Systems: A Grounded Theory Study of Executive Decision-Making

Transformational Leadership in Agile Organizations: A Qualitative Exploration of Managerial Practices and Cultural Change

The Role of Middle Managers in Management System Evolution: A Qualitative Study of Change Implementation Processes

Leadership Practices for Sustaining Innovation Ecosystems: A Qualitative Study of Knowledge-Based Organizations

Leadership Challenges in the Transition from Hierarchical to Network-Based Management Systems: A Qualitative Study of Managerial Experiences in Tehran

Ethical Leadership in Algorithmic Management Systems: A Qualitative Exploration of Managerial Accountability

Leadership Identity Construction During Organizational Transformation in Computer Engineering Companies

How Strategic Leaders Foster Engineering Organizations’ Ambidexterity: A Qualitative Study of Exploration and Exploitation Practices

Leadership Behaviors Supporting Digital Organizational Maturity: A Qualitative Study of Technology-Driven Firms

Leadership for Sustainable Management Systems: A Qualitative Study of ESG-Oriented Organizational Change

Language