Investigation on the Aha-Experience as an Indicator of Correct Solutions in Functional Analysis in Engineering Design

Abstract The functional analysis of technical systems is an important part of the design process. To further improve the design process, especially the functional analysis, it must not be viewed as a monodisciplinary process. To this end, cognitive factors such as the aha-experience must also be included in studies of analysis processes to a greater extent. This paper investigates the relationship between the occurrence of aha-experiences and the correctness of solutions in the analysis of a technical system. An aha-experience is a strong feeling of subjective certainty that accompanies the cognitive process of suddenly finding a previously unknown solution. For this purpose, a study on the functional analysis was evaluated. The results show that many identified subfunctions of the system under investigation were identified with an aha-experience and that these subfunctions are more often correct. The results also suggest that aha-experiences occur more often among students than among experienced design engineers. Especially among students, a positive relation of aha-experiences on the correctness of the identified subfunction can be seen. This offers potential for further investigations to make aha-experiences useful in design methods.

[1]  Ömer Akin,et al.  Frames of reference in architectural design: analysing the hyperacclamation (A-h-a-!) , 1996 .

[2]  Ayse Basar Bener,et al.  The Impact of Confirmation Bias on the Release-based Defect Prediction of Developer Groups , 2013, SEKE.

[3]  Sven Matthiesen,et al.  The Dilemma of Managing Iterations in Time-to-market Development Processes , 2012 .

[4]  Sven Matthiesen,et al.  SEVEN YEARS OF PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT IN INDUSTRY – EXPERIENCES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR SUPPORTING ENGINEERING DESIGN WITH ‘THINKING TOOLS’ , 2011 .

[5]  Amory H. Danek,et al.  The temporal dynamics of insight problem solving – restructuring might not always be sudden , 2019, Thinking & Reasoning.

[6]  Amory H. Danek,et al.  Moment of Truth: Why Aha! Experiences are Correct , 2018, The Journal of Creative Behavior.

[7]  Amory H. Danek,et al.  Working Wonders? Investigating insight with magic tricks , 2014, Cognition.

[8]  M. McHugh.  Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic , 2012, Biochemia medica.

[9]  Mirko Meboldt,et al.  Mobile Eye Tracking in Engineering Design Education , 2018 .

[10]  Karthik Ramani,et al.  Comparing Functional Analysis Methods for Product Dissection Tasks , 2015 .

[11]  Petra Badke-Schaub,et al.  Analysis of design projects , 1999 .

[12]  Gary Jones.  Testing two cognitive theories of insight. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[13]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Design cognition: results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity , 2016 .

[14]  Amory H. Danek,et al.  What about False Insights? Deconstructing the Aha! Experience along Its Multiple Dimensions for Correct and Incorrect Solutions Separately , 2017, Front. Psychol..

[15]  Albert Albers,et al.  Variations in functional decomposition for an existing product: Experimental results , 2011, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[16]  Edward M. Bowden,et al.  Insight solutions are correct more often than analytic solutions , 2016, Thinking & reasoning.

[17]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[18]  Sven Matthiesen,et al.  Eye tracking study on successful micro-strategies by design engineers for the synthesis-driven analysis of technical systems , 2018 .

[19]  Jacob Cohen.  A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[20]  Benjamin D. Jee,et al.  Investigating Insight as Sudden Learning , 2012, J. Probl. Solving.

[21]  Sven Matthiesen,et al.  Differences in analysis and interpretation of technical systems by expert and novice engineering designers , 2015 .

[22]  Claudia Eckert,et al.  Perspectives on iteration in design and development , 2017 .

[23]  Jordan Grafman,et al.  Oculometric signature of switch into awareness? Pupil size predicts sudden insight whereas microsaccades predict problem-solving via analysis , 2020, NeuroImage.

[24]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data , 1984 .

[25]  Sven Matthiesen,et al.  The impact of confirmation bias on reasoning and visual attention during analysis in engineering design: An eye tracking study , 2020 .

[26]  J. Gero,et al.  Using neuroscience techniques to understand and improve design cognition , 2020, AIMS Neuroscience.

[27]  Sven Matthiesen,et al.  Managing Assumptions during Analysis - Study on successful Approaches of Design Engineers , 2018 .

[28]  K. Bühler,et al.  Tatsachen und Probleme zu einer Psychologie der Denkvorgänge: I Über Gedanken , 1907 .

[29]  J. Fleck,et al.  The use of verbal protocols as data: An analysis of insight in the candle problem , 2004, Memory & cognition.

[30]  Lucienne Blessing,et al.  AN ANALYSIS OF DESIGN PROCESS MODELS ACROSS DISCIPLINES , 2012 .

[31]  Jarrod Moss,et al.  Is Insight Always the Same? A Protocol Analysis of Insight in Compound Remote Associate Problems , 2012, J. Probl. Solving.

[32]  Sven Matthiesen,et al.  Studiendesign zur Untersuchung der synthesegetriebenen Analyse von Kon-strukteuren , 2017 .

[33]  J. Schooler,et al.  The dark side of Eureka: Artificially induced Aha moments make facts feel true , 2019, Cognition.

[34]  Thinking & Reasoning - 10 years on , 2005 .

[35]  Amory H. Danek,et al.  Aha! experiences leave a mark: facilitated recall of insight solutions , 2012, Psychological Research.