Lifting the Veil: Drawing insights about design teams from a cognitively-inspired computational model

Novel design methodologies are often evaluated through studies involving human designers, but such studies can incur a high personnel cost. It can also be difficult to isolate the effects of specific team or individual characteristics. This work introduces the Cognitively-Inspired Simulated Annealing Teams (CISAT) modeling framework, a platform for efficiently simulating and analyzing human design teams. The framework models a number of empirically demonstrated cognitive phenomena, thus balancing simplicity and direct applicability. This paper discusses the model's composition, and demonstrates its utility through simulating human design teams in a cognitive study. Simulation results are compared directly to the results from human designers. The CISAT model is also used to identify the most beneficial characteristics in the cognitive study.

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

[2]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  Cognitive-Based Search Strategies for Complex Bio-Nanotechnology Design Derived Through Symbiotic Human and Agent-Based Approaches , 2014 .

[3]  Christopher McComb,et al.  Rolling with the punches: An examination of team performance in a design task subject to drastic changes , 2015 .

[4]  Patrick Siarry,et al.  A theoretical study on the behavior of simulated annealing leading to a new cooling schedule , 2005, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

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

[6]  H. Simon,et al.  Rational choice and the structure of the environment. , 1956, Psychological review.

[7]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Is it an Agent, or Just a Program?: A Taxonomy for Autonomous Agents , 1996, ATAL.

[8]  Teresa M. Amabile,et al.  From Guilford to Creative Synergy: Opening the Black Box of Team-Level Creativity , 2001 .

[9]  Mark S. Granovetter.  T H E S T R E N G T H O F WEAK TIES: A NETWORK THEORY REVISITED , 1983 .

[10]  N. Cliff.  Answering Ordinal Questions with Ordinal Data Using Ordinal Statistics. , 1996, Multivariate behavioral research.

[11]  Hiroki Sayama,et al.  The effects of mental model formation on group decision making: An agent-based simulation , 2011, Complex..

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

[13]  Mark S. Granovetter.  The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[14]  Lassi A. Liikkanen,et al.  The preference effect in design concept evaluation , 2014 .

[15]  Hans Blumenfeld,et al.  The Role of Design , 1967 .

[16]  A. Flache.  The rational weakness of strong ties: Failure of group solidarity in a highly cohesive group of rational agents , 2002 .

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

[18]  Christopher McComb,et al.  Studying Human Design Teams via Computational Teams of Simulated Annealing Agents , 2015 .

[19]  Robin Cooper,et al.  Target costing and value engineering , 1997 .

[20]  Linden J. Ball,et al.  Structured and opportunistic processing in design: a critical discussion , 1995, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[21]  Michael W. Macy,et al.  The weakness of strong ties: Collective action failure in a highly cohesive group* , 1996 .

[22]  Jennifer J. Richler,et al.  Effect size estimates: current use, calculations, and interpretation. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[23]  Ian Dennis,et al.  Cognitive processes in engineering design: a longitudinal study , 1994 .

[24]  Richard M. Crowder,et al.  The Development of an Agent-Based Modeling Framework for Simulating Engineering Team Work , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

[25]  A. Dong,et al.  Investigating design cognition in the construction and enactment of team mental models , 2013 .

[26]  Allen Newell,et al.  Human Problem Solving. , 1973 .

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

[28]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  Simulated Annealing and the Generation of the Objective Function: A Model of Learning During Problem Solving , 1997, Comput. Intell..

[29]  R. Sternberg,et al.  Recognizing, defining, and representing problems. , 2003 .

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

[31]  John S. Gero,et al.  Social learning in design teams: The importance of direct and indirect communications , 2013, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[32]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  Analyzing the Effect of Team Structure on Team Performance: An Experimental and Computational Approach , 2014, CogSci.

[33]  Petra Badke-Schaub,et al.  Thinking in design teams - an analysis of team communication , 2002 .

[34]  John S. Gero,et al.  Computational studies to understand the role of social learning in team familiarity and its effects on team performance , 2012 .

[35]  Pat Langley,et al.  Learning to search : from weak methods to domain-specific heuristics , 1985 .

[36]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  Unlocking Organizational Potential: A Computational Platform for Investigating Structural Interdependence in Design , 2009 .

[37]  C. D. Gelatt,et al.  Optimization by Simulated Annealing , 1983, Science.

[38]  YAN JIN,et al.  The virtual design team: A computational model of project organizations , 1996, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[39]  John Yen,et al.  Modeling and simulating human teamwork behaviors using intelligent agents , 2004 .

[40]  Thomas G. Dietterich,et al.  A model of the mechanical design process based on empirical data , 1988, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[41]  Bill Cooper.  Rolling with the punches , 1991 .

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

[43]  Nancy L. Leech,et al.  A Call for Greater Use of Nonparametric Statistics , 2002 .

[44]  Jeffrey D. Kromrey,et al.  Robust Confidence Intervals for Effect Sizes: A Comparative Study of Cohen's d and Cliff's Delta Under Non-normality and Heterogeneous Variances , 2004 .

[45]  Paul E. Jones,et al.  The potential for social contextual and group biases in team decision-making: biases, conditions and psychological mechanisms , 2000, Ergonomics.

[46]  Shelley D. Dionne,et al.  The role of leadership in shared mental model convergence and team performance improvement: An agent-based computational model , 2010 .