  We present an empirical study aimed at analysing the use of viewpoints in an
industrial Concurrent Engineering context. Our focus is on the viewpoints
expressed in the argumentative process taking place in evaluation meetings. Our
results show that arguments enabling a viewpoint or proposal to be defended are
often characterized by the use of constraints. One result involved the way in
which the proposals for solutions are assessed during these meetings. We have
revealed the existence of specific assessment modes in these meetings as well
as their combination. Then, we show that, even if some constraints are
apparently identically used by the different specialists involved in meetings,
various meanings and weightings are associated with these constraints by these
different specialists.
