A systematic review of protocol studies on conceptual design cognition: Design as search and exploration

Hay, Laura; Duffy, Alex H. B.; McTeague, Chris; Pidgeon, Laura M.; Vuletic, Tijana; Grealy, Madeleine

doi:10.1017/dsj.2017.11

Cited by 109 publications

(105 citation statements)

References 71 publications

(222 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We focused on determining the cognitive strategies engineers used to explore design problems on their own without intervention. We asked mechanical engineering practitioners and students to solve open‐ended design problems, and recorded their cognitive processes through a think‐aloud method (Gero & Tang, ; Hay et al, ). These research questions guided the study: What patterns of problem exploration emerge as mechanical engineers develop solutions to design problems? To what extent do mechanical engineers employ similar patterns of problem exploration across different design problem contexts? …”

Section: Research Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Research Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Design by taking perspectives: How engineers explore problems

Murray

Studer

Daly

et al. 2019

J of Engineering Edu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Problem exploration includes identifying, framing, and defining design problems and bounding problem spaces. Intentional and unintentional changes in problem understanding naturally occur as designers explore design problems to create solutions. Through problem exploration, new perspectives on the problem can emerge along with new and diverse ideas for solutions. By considering multiple problem perspectives varying in scope and focus, designers position themselves to increase their understandings of the “real” problem and engage in more diverse idea generation processes leading to an increasing variety of potential solutions. Purpose/Hypothesis The purpose of this study was to investigate systematic patterns in problem exploration in the early design phases of mechanical engineers. Design/Method Thirty‐five senior undergraduate students and experienced designers with mechanical engineering backgrounds worked individually following a think‐aloud protocol. They explored problems and generated solutions for two of four randomly assigned design problems. After generating solutions, participants framed and rewrote problem statements to reflect their perspectives on the design problem their solutions addressed. Thematic analysis and a priori codes guided the identification of problem exploration patterns within and across problems. Results The set of patterns in engineers' problem exploration that emerged from the analysis documents alternative strategies in exploring problems to arrive at solutions. The results provide evidence that engineering designers, working individually, apply both problem‐specific and more general strategies to explore design problems. Conclusions Our study identified common patterns in the explorations of presented problems by individual engineering designers. The observed patterns, described as Problem Exploration Perspectives, capture alternative approaches to discovering problems and taking multiple problem perspectives during design. Learning about Problem Exploration Perspectives may be helpful in creating alternative perspectives on a design problem, potentially leading to more varied and innovative solutions. This paper concludes with an extended example illustrating the process of applying Problem Exploration Perspectives to move between problem perspectives to generate varied design outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Research Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Research Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design by taking perspectives: How engineers explore problems

Murray

Studer

Daly

et al. 2019

J of Engineering Edu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, solutionfocused ideation is restricted to a limited part of the solution space, corresponding with a fixed set of requirements in the problem space ( Figure 2). This is more reflective of searchbased models of designing, where the focus of the problem does not change over time (Hay et al 2017). Table 1.…”

Section: Scope Of Existing Systematic Ideation Analysis Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A novel systematic approach for analysing exploratory design ideation

Hay

Duffy

Grealy

et al. 2019

Journal of Engineering Design

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two kinds of design ideation process may be distinguished in terms of the problems addressed: (i) solution-focused, i.e. generating solutions to address a fixed problem specifying a desired output; and (ii) exploratory, i.e. considering different interpretations of an openended problem and generating associated solutions. Existing systematic analysis approaches focus on the former; the literature is lacking such an approach for the latter. In this paper, we provide a means to systematically analyse exploratory ideation for the first time through a new approach: Analysis of Exploratory Design Ideation (AEDI). AEDI involves: (1) open-ended ideation tasks; (2) coding of explored problems and solutions from sketches; and (3) evaluating ideation performance based on coding. We applied AEDI to 812 concept sketches from 19 open-ended tasks completed during a neuroimaging study of 30 professional product design engineers. Results demonstrate that the approach provides: (i) consistent tasks that stimulate problem exploration; (ii) a reliable means of coding explored problems and solutions; and (iii) an appropriate way to rank/compare designers' performance. AEDI enables the benefits of systematic analysis (e.g. greater comparability, replicability, and efficiency) to be realised in exploratory ideation research, and studies using open-ended problems more generally. Future improvements include increasing coding validity and reliability.

show abstract

“…Guidelines adapted from Moher et al (2009) on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) were used to ensure a systematic collection and recording of literature. PRISMA was developed for conducting systematic reviews in the medical field but has the flexibility to ensure a systematic process for all potential fields including engineering design research (Hay et al 2017). The PRISMA guidelines were adapted to remove the meta-analysis stage as this is not required for a systematic literature mapping.…”

Section: Search Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

A novel systematic method to evaluate computer-supported collaborative design technologies

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Selection of suitable computer-supported collaborative design (CSCD) technologies is crucial to facilitate successful projects. This paper presents the first systematic method for engineering design teams to evaluate and select the most suitable CSCD technologies comparing technology functionality and project requirements established in peer-reviewed literature. The paper first presents 220 factors that influence successful CSCD. These factors were then systematically mapped and categorised to create CSCD requirement statements. The novel evaluation and selection method incorporates these requirement statements within a matrix and develops a discourse analysis text processing algorithm with data from collaborative projects to automate the population of how technologies impact the success of CSCD in engineering design teams. This method was validated using data collected across 3 years of a student global design project. The impact of this method is the potential to change the way engineering design teams consider the technology they use and how the selection of appropriate tools impacts the success of their CSCD projects. The development of the CSCD evaluation matrix is the first of its kind enabling a systematic and justifiable comparison and technology selection, with the aim of best supporting the engineering designers collaborative design activity.

show abstract

A systematic review of protocol studies on conceptual design cognition: Design as search and exploration

Cited by 109 publications

References 71 publications

Design by taking perspectives: How engineers explore problems

Design by taking perspectives: How engineers explore problems

A novel systematic approach for analysing exploratory design ideation

A novel systematic method to evaluate computer-supported collaborative design technologies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About