Investigating the Influence of Designers’ Cognitive Characteristics and Interaction Behaviors in Design Concept Generation

This paper investigates relationships among the cognitive characteristics, interaction behaviors, and ideation outcomes of 14 engineering design teams engaged in concept generation. Cognitive characteristics were measured using the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI), which assesses an individual’s cognitive preference for structure in generating and working with ideas in problem solving. Team interactions were assessed using the Interaction Dynamics Notation (IDN), which allows interaction behaviors to be quantitatively analyzed, while team outcomes were measured in terms of ideation utterances (ideas and unique ideas). Our analyses revealed that cognitive style (KAI) did not correlate significantly with interaction response behaviors (IDN) or with the quantity of ideas/unique ideas produced. However, the cognitive style diversity of the teams did influence the number of topics they discussed, as well as the interconnectedness of those topics. In addition, several specific interaction responses were associated with the occurrence of ideas/unique ideas, although the sequences associated with those responses varied widely; the more adaptive teams also had greater position specificity in these sequences than the more innovative teams. Our findings highlight the importance of forming cognitively diverse design teams and suggest that specific interaction behaviors should be encouraged or taught as a means to increase the occurrence of ideas and/or unique ideas during team concept generation.

[1]  Ilya Avdeev,et al.  Exploring the dynamic interactions and cognitive characteristics of NSF innovation corps (I-Corps) teams , 2018 .

[2]  M. Kirton.  Adaptors and Innovators: A Description and Measure. , 1976 .

[3]  Elizabeth Gerber,et al.  Using improvisation to enhance the effectiveness of brainstorming , 2009, CHI.

[4]  M. West.  Sparkling Fountains or Stagnant Ponds: An Integrative Model of Creativity and Innovation Implementation in Work Groups , 2002 .

[5]  Seda Yilmaz,et al.  Comparing Ideation Techniques for Beginning Designers , 2016 .

[6]  Jami J. Shah,et al.  Empirical Studies of Designer Thinking: Past, Present, and Future , 2015 .

[7]  Franck Marle,et al.  Assembling Creative Teams in New Product Development Using Creative Team Familiarity , 2013 .

[8]  Gabriela Goldschmidt.  Linkography: Unfolding the Design Process , 2014 .

[9]  R. Sternberg,et al.  Are Cognitive Styles Still in Style , 1997 .

[10]  Kathryn Weed Jablokow,et al.  Project Team Dynamics and Cognitive Style , 2002 .

[11]  Seda Yilmaz,et al.  The Impact of Teaming and Cognitive Style on Student Perceptions of Design Ideation Outcomes , 2015 .

[12]  M. Piovoso,et al.  Cognitive Style and Concept Mapping Performance , 2015 .

[13]  Michael A. West.  The Essence of High Performance Teams , 2012 .

[14]  Scarlett R. Miller,et al.  How Concept Selection Tools Impact the Development of Creative Ideas in Engineering Design Education , 2018 .

[15]  David Chan,et al.  Cognitive Misfit of Problem-Solving Style at Work: A Facet of Person-Organization Fit , 1996 .

[16]  Seda Yilmaz,et al.  Investigating Impacts on the Ideation Flexibility of Engineers , 2014 .

[17]  H. Shipton,et al.  Twelve steps to heaven: Successfully managing change through developing innovative teams , 2004 .

[18]  Gregory Kress,et al.  INITIAL CONDITIONS: THE STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION OF EFFECTIVE DESIGN TEAMS , 2011 .

[19]  Ronald E. Goldsmith,et al.  Adaption-innovation and cognitive complexity , 1985 .

[20]  Ade Mabogunje,et al.  Visualising professional vision interactions in design reviews , 2016 .

[21]  Elizabeth Gerber,et al.  Improvisation principles and techniques for design , 2007, CHI.

[22]  Peter K. Hammerschmidt,et al.  The Kirton Adaption Innovation Inventory Find Group Problem Solving Success Rates , 1996 .

[23]  Seda Yilmaz,et al.  Design Heuristics in Innovative Products , 2016 .

[24]  Shanna R. Daly,et al.  The Design Problem Framework: Using Adaption-Innovation Theory to Construct Design Problem Statements , 2014 .

[25]  Christopher W. Allinson,et al.  The Cognitive Style Index: A Measure of Intuition‐Analysis For Organizational Research , 1996 .

[26]  James J. Duderstadt,et al.  Engineering Research and America's Future: Meeting the Challenges of a Global Economy , 2005 .

[27]  Ben Matthews,et al.  Intersections of brainstorming rules and social order , 2009 .

[28]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  Design Team Convergence: The Influence of Example Solution , 2010 .

[29]  Pamela Vercellone-Smith,et al.  Characterizing communication networks in a web-based classroom: Cognitive styles and linguistic behavior of self-organizing groups in online discussions , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[30]  K. Jablokow.  Developing problem solving leadership: a cognitive approach , 2008 .

[31]  Shanna R. Daly,et al.  Impact of Problem Contexts on the Diversity of Design Solutions: An Exploratory Case Study , 2015 .

[32]  S. Holm.  A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure , 1979 .

[33]  Michael A. Norman,et al.  Informing HCI Design through Conversation Analysis , 1991, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[34]  Yoram Reich,et al.  A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH OF DESIGN THEORIES USING GENERATIVENESS AND ROBUSTNESS , 2011 .

[35]  J. McGrath.  Social Psychology: A Brief Introduction , 1964 .

[36]  Janet McDonnell,et al.  Collaborative negotiation in design: A study of design conversations between architect and building users , 2009 .

[37]  Seda Yilmaz,et al.  Ideation Variety in Mechanical Design: Examining the Effects of Cognitive Style and Design Heuristics , 2015 .

[38]  John C. Tang.  Findings from Observational Studies of Collaborative Work , 1991, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[39]  Maria C. Yang,et al.  A Study of Student Design Team Behaviors in Complex System Design , 2012, Journal of Mechanical Design.

[40]  Terri R. Kurtzberg.  Feeling Creative, Being Creative: An Empirical Study of Diversity and Creativity in Teams , 2005 .

[41]  Seda Yilmaz,et al.  Exploring the Effects of Problem Framing on Solution Shifts: A Case Study , 2015 .

[42]  Kuchipudi Sravanthi,et al.  Applications of Big data in Various Fields , 2015 .

[43]  H. Eysenck.  The structure of human personality , 1953 .

[44]  Wei-Yin Loh,et al.  Classification and regression trees , 2011, WIREs Data Mining Knowl. Discov..

[45]  Thomas Lee Rodgers,et al.  Identifying Quality, Novel, and Creative Ideas: Constructs and Scales for Idea Evaluation , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[46]  Scarlett R. Miller,et al.  Choosing creativity: the role of individual risk and ambiguity aversion on creative concept selection in engineering design , 2016, Research in Engineering Design.

[47]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Analysing design activity , 1996 .

[48]  Philip Samuel,et al.  TOWARD AN ADAPTION-INNOVATION STRATEGY FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN , 2011 .

[49]  Elena L. Grigorenko,et al.  A Capsule History of Theory and Research on Styles , 2014 .

[50]  Jami J. Shah,et al.  Evaluation of idea generation methods for conceptual design: Effectiveness metrics and design of experiments , 2000 .

[51]  Dustin K. Jundt,et al.  Teams in organizations: from input-process-output models to IMOI models. , 2005, Annual review of psychology.

[52]  David E. Booth,et al.  The impact and management of cognitive gap in high performance product development organizations , 2006 .

[53]  Ade Mabogunje,et al.  Developing a visual representation to characterize moment-to-moment concept generation in design teams , 2013 .

[54]  Ade Mabogunje,et al.  Diagnostics for Design Thinking Teams , 2016 .

[55]  Armand Hatchuel,et al.  A NEW APPROACH OF INNOVATIVE DESIGN : AN INTRODUCTION TO C-K THEORY. , 2003 .

[56]  Susan L. Kichuk,et al.  The big five personality factors and team performance: implications for selecting successful product design teams , 1997 .

[57]  Jef R. Peeters,et al.  Refinements to the variety metric for idea evaluation , 2013 .

[58]  Leonard Talmy,et al.  Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition , 1987, Cogn. Sci..

[59]  Larry Leifer,et al.  Design Whodunit: The Relationship Between Individual Characteristics and Interaction Behaviors in Design Concept Generation , 2017 .

[60]  David W. Rosen,et al.  Refined metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness , 2009 .

[61]  Shanna R. Daly,et al.  Incremental to radical ideas: paradigm-relatedness metrics for investigating ideation creativity and diversity , 2019 .

[62]  Jessica Menold,et al.  The Prototype for X Framework: Assessing Impact on Self-Reported Prototyping Behavior of Student Designers , 2019, Journal of Mechanical Design.

[63]  Arthur B. Markman,et al.  An Experimental Study of Group Idea Generation Techniques: Understanding the Roles of Idea Representation and Viewing Methods , 2011 .

[64]  Patrice M. Buzzanell,et al.  Analyzing Design Review Conversations , 2015 .

[65]  Bi Liu,et al.  A Normalized Levenshtein Distance Metric , 2007, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[66]  Steven M. Smith,et al.  Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness , 2003 .