Rolling with the punches: An examination of team performance in a design task subject to drastic changes

Designers must often create solutions to problems that exhibit dynamic characteristics. For instance, a client might modify specifications after design has commenced, or a competitor may introduce a new technology or feature. This paper presents a cognitive study that was conducted to explore the manner in which design teams respond to such situations. In the study, teams of undergraduate engineering students sought to solve a design task that was subject to two large, unexpected changes in problem formulation that were introduced during solving. High- and low-performing teams demonstrated very different approaches to solving the problem and overcoming the changes. The results indicate that there may exist a relationship between problem characteristics and fruitful solution strategies.

[1]  Kenneth Kotovsky,et al.  Representation and Transfer in Problem Solving , 1988 .

[2]  R. Mayer,et al.  Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning , 2003 .

[3]  A. Erez,et al.  ADAPTABILITY TO CHANGING TASK CONTEXTS: EFFECTS OF GENERAL COGNITIVE ABILITY, CONSCIENTIOUSNESS, AND OPENNESS TO EXPERIENCE , 2000 .

[4]  Paul A. Kirschner,et al.  Cognitive load theory: implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning , 2002 .

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

[6]  M. Maehr,et al.  The Contributions and Prospects of Goal Orientation Theory , 2007 .

[7]  Vincent R. Brown,et al.  Making Group Brainstorming More Effective: Recommendations From an Associative Memory Perspective , 2002 .

[8]  D. Vandewalle.  Development and Validation of a Work Domain Goal Orientation Instrument , 1997 .

[9]  M. Mumford,et al.  Solving Everyday Problems Creatively: The Role of Problem Construction and Personality Type , 1998 .

[10]  M. Chi,et al.  The Nature of Expertise , 1988 .

[11]  Sanjeev Arora,et al.  The approximability of NP-hard problems , 1998, STOC '98.

[12]  Petra Badke-Schaub,et al.  Shared mental models—linking team cognition and performance , 2007 .

[13]  Robert J. Crutcher,et al.  The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. , 1993 .

[14]  J. A. Lepine,et al.  Team adaptation and postchange performance: effects of team composition in terms of members' cognitive ability and personality. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[15]  Michael D. Mumford,et al.  Problem construction and cognition: Applying problem representations in ill-defined domains. , 1994 .

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

[17]  Alice M. Agogino,et al.  Text analysis for constructing design representations , 1997, Artif. Intell. Eng..

[18]  Alice M. Agogino,et al.  A Document Analysis Method for Characterizing Design Team Performance , 2004 .

[19]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Expertise in Design: an overview , 2004 .

[20]  S. Mohammed,et al.  Mental models in design teams: a valid approach to performance in design collaboration? , 2007 .

[21]  M. Runco,et al.  Problem Construction and Creativity: The Role of Ability, Cue Consistency, and Active Processing , 1997 .

[22]  Russell C. Hibbeler,et al.  Structural Analysis , 1994 .

[23]  Paul J. Feltovich,et al.  Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices , 1981, Cogn. Sci..

[24]  Matthew D. Wood.  Problem Representation and Team Mental Model Development in Individual and Team Problem Solving Performance , 2013 .

[25]  Laroche Edouard,et al.  Cardialockプロジェクト:心臓手術用の能動型安定化装置設計 | 文献情報 | J-GLOBAL 科学技術総合リンクセンター , 2011 .

[26]  Mary T. Dzindolet,et al.  Chapter 14 – Collaborative Creativity—Group Creativity and Team Innovation , 2012 .

[27]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  Design Team Convergence: The Influence of Example Solution Quality , 2009 .

[28]  Christopher McComb,et al.  Quantitative Comparison of High- and Low-Performing Teams in a Design Task Subject to Drastic Changes , 2014 .

[29]  H. Simon,et al.  Why are some problems hard? Evidence from Tower of Hanoi , 1985, Cognitive Psychology.

[30]  Matthew D. Wood,et al.  The Role of Design Team Interaction Structure on Individual and Shared Mental Models , 2014 .

[31]  Gerd Fricke,et al.  Successful individual approaches in engineering design , 1996 .

[32]  A. Kruglanski,et al.  Motivated resistance and openness to persuasion in the presence or absence of prior information. , 1993, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[33]  Christina E. Shalley,et al.  Handbook of Organizational Creativity , 2007 .

[34]  H. Simon,et al.  What makes some problems really hard: Explorations in the problem space of difficulty , 1990, Cognitive Psychology.

[35]  N. Kerr,et al.  Group performance and decision making. , 2004, Annual review of psychology.

[36]  J. Lepine.  Adaptation of teams in response to unforeseen change: effects of goal difficulty and team composition in terms of cognitive ability and goal orientation. , 2005, The Journal of applied psychology.