Abstract
There is limited information about the design process and outcomes of novice industrial designers when working with different levels of problem abstraction. In this paper, we propose a new way of describing the cognitive processes of problem solving based on problem decomposition strategy studies and network-based cognitive maps. An empirical study was conducted to examine the impact of problem abstraction on novice designers, and their reasoning mode was quantitatively explored. Thirty-three novice designers majoring in industrial design participated in a 40-min design exercise and verbalized their cognitive process while they were solving a given design problem. The verbal protocols from the experiment were first segmented, then encoded based on cognitive maps. By analyzing the problem-solving process using this new method, we found that designers use different reasoning modes for different levels of problem abstraction. Abstract problems helped designers to break design fixation and promote the divergence of ideas. Ideas also improved in fluency, originality and novelty so that the abstract group generated better solutions. The study contributes to an enhanced understanding of design activity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity (Vol. 87). MA: Harvard Business School Publishing Boston.
Anderson, J. R., Greeno, J. G., Kline, P. J., & Neves, D. M. (1981). Acquisition of problem-solving skill. Cognitive skills and their acquisition, 191, 230.
Anderson, J. R. (1996). The architecture of cognition (Vol. 5). UK: Psychology Press.
Anderson, J.R. (2005) Cognitive psychology and its implications. Macmillan.
Bar-Eli, S. (2013). Sketching profiles: Awareness to individual differences in sketching as a means of enhancing design solution development. Design Studies, 34(4), 472–493.
Basadur, M., Graen, G., & Wakabayashi, M. (1990). Identifying individual differences in creative problem solving style. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 24(2), 111–131.
Beitz W., Pahl G., Grote K. (1996) Engineering design: A systematic approach. Mrs Bulletin, 71.
Chai, K., & Xiao, X. (2012). Understanding design research: A bibliometric analysis of design studies (1996–2010). Design Studies, 33(1), 24–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.06.004.
Chen, L., Wang, P., Dong, H., Shi, F., Han, J., Guo, Y., et al. (2019). An artificial intelligence based data-driven approach for design ideation. Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation, 61, 10–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvcir.2019.02.009.
Cheng, P. W. (1995). Pragmatic reasoning with a point of view. Thinking & Reasoning, 1(4), 289–313.
Cross, N. (1985). Styles of learning, designing and computing. Design Studies, 6(3), 157–162.
Cross, N. (2001). Design cognition: Results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity (pp. 79–103). Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education.
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497.
Gasper, K. (2004). Do you see what I see? Affect and visual information processing. Cognition and Emotion, 18(3), 405–421.
Gero, J. S., & Mc Neill, T. (1998). An approach to the analysis of design protocols. Design Studies, 19(1), 21–61.
Gettys, C. F., Manning, C., & Casey, J. T. (1987). An evaluation of human act generation performance. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 39(1), 23–51.
Goldstone, R. L., & Sakamoto, Y. (2003). The transfer of abstract principles governing complex adaptive systems. Cognitive Psychology, 46(4), 414–466.
Goldstone, R. L., & Son, J. Y. (2005). The transfer of scientific principles using concrete and idealized simulations. The Journal of the learning sciences, 14(1), 69–110.
Ho, C. (2001). Some phenomena of problem decomposition strategy for design thinking: Differences between novices and experts. Design Studies, 22(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(99)00030-7.
Huisman, M.V.D.M. (2005) Software for Social Network Analysis. In: Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 270–316.
Jiang H., Gero J.S., Yen C. (2011). Exploring the effect of design tasks on conceptual design activities: A design protocol study based on the FBS ontology. Diversity and Unity: Proceeding of IASDR2011, the 4th World Conference on Design Research, Delft,the Netherlands
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1990). Constraints on representational change: Evidence from children’s drawing. Cognition, 34(1), 57–83.
Kim, E., & Kim, K. (2015). Cognitive styles in design problem solving: Insights from network-based cognitive maps. Design Studies, 40, 1–38.
Kvan, T., & Jia, Y. (2005). Students’ learning styles and their correlation with performance in architectural design studio. Design Studies, 26(1), 19–34.
Larkin J. (1981) A Model for Learning to Solve Textbook Physics Problems. Cognitive Skills and Their Acquisition.
Lubert, T. (2005). How can computers be partners in the creative process. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63, 365–369.
Mc Neill, T., Gero, J. S., & Warren, J. (1998). Understanding conceptual electronic design using protocol analysis. Research in Engineering Design, 10(3), 129–140.
Newell, A., & Simon, H.A. (1972) Human problem solving, Vol 104, No. 9. Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Scott, J. (1988). Social network analysis. Sociology-The Journal of the British Sociological Association, 1(22), 109–127.
Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4(3–4), 181–201.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. Handbook of creativity, 1, 3–15.
Takeda, H., Yoshioka, M., Tomiyama, T., & Shimomura, Y. (1994). Analysis of design processes by function, behavior and structure. In The Delft Protocols Workshop, conference proceedings., 1994. Citeseer.
Takeda, H., Yoshioka, M., Tomiyama, T., & Shimomura, Y. (2007) Analysis of Design Processes by Function, Behavior and Structure. The Delft Protocols Workshop, conference proceedings.1994
Tang, H. H., Lee, Y. Y., & Gero, J. S. (2011). Comparing collaborative co-located and distributed design processes in digital and traditional sketching environments: A protocol study using the function-behaviour-structure coding scheme. Design Studies, 32(1), 1–29.
Tversky, B., Corter, J.E., Nickerson, J.V., Zahner, D., & Rho, Y.J. (2008). Transforming descriptions and diagrams to sketches in information system design. International Conference on Theory and Application of Diagrams, 242–256.
Van Someren, M. W., Barnard, Y. F., & Sandberg, J. (1994). The think aloud method: a practical approach to modelling cognitive. London: AcademicPress.
Vasconcelos, L. A., & Crilly, N. (2016). Inspiration and fixation: Questions, methods, findings, and challenges. Design Studies, 42, 1–32.
Viswanathan, V., & Linsey, J. (2011). Design fixation in physical modeling: An investigation on the role of sunk cost. International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, 2011(54860), 119–130.
Zahner, D., Nickerson, J. V., Tversky, B., Corter, J. E., & Ma, J. (2010). A fix for fixation? Rerepresenting and abstracting as creative processes in the design of information systems. Ai Edam-Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design Analysis and Manufacturing, 24(2), 231–244. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060410000077.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the Application of Public Welfare Technology in Zhejiang Province [LGF18F020005], Philosophy and Social Science Foundation in Zhejiang Province [20NDQN320Yb].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhou, C., Chai, C. & Liao, J. Analysis of problem decomposition strategies of novice industrial designers using network-based cognitive maps. Int J Technol Des Educ 32, 1293–1315 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09647-1
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09647-1