Understanding physical models in design cognition: A triangulation of qualitative and laboratory studies

Designers use various kinds of physical models throughout their design process to enhance creativity. The existing literature provides conflicting guidelines about their implementation. The effects of physical models on design cognition remains largely unknown. Prior laboratory studies show that physical models supplement designers' erroneous mental models and thereby lead to higher quality ideas. These prior studies fail to demonstrate any design fixation associated with the use of physical models. In contrast, a few prior observational studies on practicing designers show that the use of physical models causes design fixation. Based on these conflicting results, this study investigates the role of physical models in industry-sponsored projects and in the development of award-winning products through a qualitative research approach. This study explores two hypotheses: The Mental Models Hypothesis - physical models supplement designers' mental models and the Fixation Hypothesis - physical models cause design fixation during the idea generation process. The data are coded qualitatively and then tested quantitatively. The results are triangulated with the results from the prior controlled study. The results provide support to the hypotheses. The differences observed between current and prior studies point to the potential role of the Sunk Cost Effect in engineering idea generation with physical models.

[1]  Graham Green,et al.  On the developing role of physical models in engineering design education , 2006 .

[2]  James O Prochaska,et al.  A discussion with James O. Prochaska, PhD. Interview by Paul E. Terry. , 2012, American journal of health promotion : AJHP.

[3]  Anders Berglund,et al.  The Importance of Prototyping for Education in Product Innovation Engineering , 2011 .

[4]  Kevin Otto,et al.  Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development , 2000 .

[5]  Julie S. Linsey,et al.  UNDERSTANDING FIXATION: A STUDY ON THE ROLE OF EXPERTISE , 2011 .

[6]  Julie S. Linsey,et al.  Physical Models in Idea Generation: Hindrance or Help? , 2010 .

[7]  Takashi Kiriyama,et al.  Strategic knowledge acquisition: a case study of learning through prototyping , 1998, Knowl. Based Syst..

[8]  Kristin L. Wood,et al.  Development of a Functional Basis for Design , 2000 .

[9]  M. Einhorn Art as Innovation , 2002 .

[10]  H. Arkes,et al.  The Psychology of Sunk Cost , 1985 .

[11]  Julie S. Linsey,et al.  Design Fixation in Physical Modeling: An Investigation on the Role of Sunk Cost , 2011 .

[12]  Carl Auerbach,et al.  Qualitative Data: An Introduction to Coding and Analysis , 2003 .

[13]  Willett Kempton,et al.  Two Theories of Home Heat Control , 1986, Cogn. Sci..

[14]  V.K. Viswanathan,et al.  Enhancing student innovation: Physical models in the idea generation process , 2009, 2009 39th IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.

[15]  Daniel A. McAdams,et al.  A Component Taxonomy as a Framework for Computational Design Synthesis , 2009, J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng..

[16]  William Lidwell,et al.  Universal Principles of Design , 2003 .

[17]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  A Study of Design Fixation, Its Mitigation and Perception in Engineering Design Faculty , 2010 .

[18]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[19]  Bo T. Christensen,et al.  The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and preinventive structure: the case of engineering design , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[20]  John S. Gero,et al.  Effects of examples on the results of a design activity , 1992, Knowl. Based Syst..

[21]  John S. Gero,et al.  Design and other types of fixation , 1996 .

[22]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development , 2002, Organ. Sci..

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