A state-transition model of team conceptual design activity

  • Tomislav Martinec
  • Stanko Škec
  • Nikola Horvat
  • Mario Štorga
Original Paper


The purpose of the study is to model the micro-scale process patterns which can be identified during team conceptual design activities. A state-transition model has been developed and used to empirically investigate the patterns of design operations during two types of team conceptual design activities: ideation and concept review. The presented work builds on the perception of design problems as ill-defined and implies that conceptual design activities involve the simultaneous development of problems and solutions using three distinctive design operations—analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. The three design operations have been defined as fine-grain design steps performed by design teams when exploring the content of both the problem and the solution dimensions of the design space. Moreover, design operations have been conceptualised as transitions between states of the explored design space, thus providing a basis for the state-transition model. The model’s ability to map and visualise proportions of design operation sequences emerging during ideation and concept review has facilitated the identification of both the activity-specific patterns and patterns that were likely to appear during both types of empirically investigated activities. The two activities exhibited similar patterns, such as alternation of solution synthesis and analysis, sequences of synthesis, analysis and evaluation within solution space, and the potential co-evolution episodes. Nevertheless, divergent traits have been identified for ideation, and convergent traits for concept review, based on the significant differences in proportions of design operations and their sequences.


Design process Conceptual design activity Teamwork State-transition model Ideation Concept review 



This paper reports on work funded by the Croatian Science Foundation MInMED ( and TAIDE projects ( The authors would like to thank Philip Cash (TU Denmark) for providing the multimedia data of the experiment sessions.


Croatian Science Foundation project IP-2018-01-7269: Team Adaptability for Innovation-Oriented Product Development - TAIDE (

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Adams RS, Cardella M, Purzer S (2016) Analyzing design review conversations: connecting design knowing, being and coaching. Des Stud 45:1–8. Google Scholar
  2. Afacan Y, Demirkan H (2011) An ontology-based universal design knowledge support system. Knowl Based Syst 24(4):530–541. Google Scholar
  3. Andreasen MM, Hansen CT, Cash P (2015) Conceptual design: interpretations, mindset and models. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  4. Asimow M (1962) Introduction to design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  5. Aurisicchio M, Bracewell RH, Wallace KM (2013) Characterising the information requests of aerospace engineering designers. Res Eng Des 24(1):43–63. Google Scholar
  6. Ball LJ, Onarheim B, Christensen BT (2010) Design requirements, epistemic uncertainty and solution development strategies in software design. Des Stud 31(6):567–589. Google Scholar
  7. Bender B (2003) Task design and task analysis for empirical studies into design activity. J Eng Des 14(4):399–408. Google Scholar
  8. Brissaud D, Garro O, Poveda O (2003) Design process rationale capture and support by abstraction of criteria. Res Eng Des 14(3):162–172. Google Scholar
  9. Cardoso C, Badke-Schaub P, Eris O (2016) Inflection moments in design discourse: how questions drive problem framing during idea generation. Des Stud 46:59–78. Google Scholar
  10. Casakin H, Badke-Schaub P (2015) Mental models and creativity in engineering and architectural design teams. In: Gero J, Hanna S (eds) Design computing and cognition’14. Springer, Cham, pp 155–171Google Scholar
  11. Casakin H, Badke-Schaub P (2017) Sharedness of team mental models in the course of design-related interaction between architects and clients. Des Sci 3(e14):1–21. Google Scholar
  12. Cash P, Maier A (2016) Prototyping with your hands: the many roles of gesture in the communication of design concepts. J Eng Des 27(1–3):118–145. Google Scholar
  13. Cash P, Štorga M (2015) Multifaceted assessment of ideation: using networks to link ideation and design activity. J Eng Des 26(10–12):391–415. Google Scholar
  14. Cash PJ, Hicks BJ, Culley SJ (2013) A comparison of designer activity using core design situations in the laboratory and practice. Des Stud 34(5):575–611. Google Scholar
  15. Chakrabarti A, Morgenstern S, Knaab H (2004) Identification and application of requirements and their impact on the design process: a protocol study. Res Eng Des 15(1):22–39. Google Scholar
  16. Cross N (2001) Design cognition: results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. In: Newstatter W, McCracken M (eds) Design knowing and learning: cognition in design education. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 79–103Google Scholar
  17. Cross N, Clayburn Cross A (1995) Observations of teamwork and social processes in design. Des Stud 16(2):143–170. Google Scholar
  18. Deken F, Kleinsmann M, Aurisicchio M et al (2012) Tapping into past design experiences: knowledge sharing and creation during novice-expert design consultations. Res Eng Des 23(3):203–218. Google Scholar
  19. Dinar M, Shah JJ, Cagan J et al (2015) Empirical studies of designer thinking: past, present, and future. J Mech Des 137(2):021101. Google Scholar
  20. Dorst K, Cross N (2001) Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem-solution. Des Stud 22(5):425–437. Google Scholar
  21. Dorst K, Vermaas PE (2005) John Gero’s function-behaviour-structure model of designing: a critical analysis. Res Eng Des 16(1–2):17–26. Google Scholar
  22. Eckert C, Clarkson J (2005) The reality of design. In: Clarkson J, Eckert C (eds) Design process improvement: a review of current practice. Springer, London, pp 1–29Google Scholar
  23. Eckert CM, Stacey M, Wyatt D, Garthwaite P (2012) Change as little as possible: creativity in design by modification. J Eng Des 23(4):337–360. Google Scholar
  24. Eisenbart B, Gericke K, Blessing LTM (2017) Taking a look at the utilisation of function models in interdisciplinary design: insights from ten engineering companies. Res Eng Des 28(3):299–331. Google Scholar
  25. Ensici A, Badke-Schaub P, Bayazit N, Lauche K (2013) Used and rejected decisions in design teamwork. CoDesign 9(2):113–131. Google Scholar
  26. Eris O, Martelaro N, Badke-Schaub P (2014) A comparative analysis of multimodal communication during design sketching in co-located and distributed environments. Des Stud 35(6):559–592. Google Scholar
  27. Fiorineschi L, Rotini F, Rissone P (2016) A new conceptual design approach for overcoming the flaws of functional decomposition and morphology. J Eng Des 27(7):438–468. Google Scholar
  28. Frankenberger E, Auer P (1997) Standardized observation of team-work in design. Res Eng Des 9(1):1–9. Google Scholar
  29. Gagniuc PA (2017) Markov chains: from theory to implementation and experimentation. Wiley, HobokenzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Gero JS (1990) Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design. AI Mag 11(4):26–36. Google Scholar
  31. Gero JS, Jiang H (2016) Exploring the design cognition of concept design reviews using the FBS-based protocol analysis. In: Adams RS, Siddiqui JA (eds) Analyzing design review conversations. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette. Google Scholar
  32. Gero JS, Kan JWT (2016) Scientific models from empirical design research. In: Cash P, Stanković T, Štorga M (eds) Experimental design research. Springer, Cham, pp 253–270Google Scholar
  33. Gero JS, Kannengiesser U (2014) The function-behaviour-structure ontology of design. In: Chakrabarti A, Blessing L (eds) An anthology of theories and models of design. Springer, London, pp 263–283. Google Scholar
  34. Gero JS, Jiang H, Williams CB (2013) Design cognition differences when using unstructured, partially structured, and structured concept generation creativity techniques. Int J Des Creat Innov 1(4):196–214. Google Scholar
  35. Goldschmidt G (2014) Linkography: unfolding the design process. The MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. Goldschmidt G (2016) Linkographic evidence for concurrent divergent and convergent thinking in creative design. Creat Res J 28(2):115–122. Google Scholar
  37. Gonçalves M, Cardoso C, Badke-Schaub P (2014) What inspires designers? Preferences on inspirational approaches during idea generation. Des Stud 35(1):29–53. Google Scholar
  38. Harvey S, Kou CY (2013) Collective engagement in creative tasks: the role of evaluation in the creative process in groups. Adm Sci Q 58(3):346–386. Google Scholar
  39. Hatcher G, Ion W, Maclachlan R, Marlow M, Simpson B, Wilson N, Wodehouse A (2018) Using linkography to compare creative methods for group ideation. Des Stud 58:127–152. Google Scholar
  40. Hay L, Duffy AHB, McTeague C et al (2017) A systematic review of protocol studies on conceptual design cognition: design as search and exploration. Des Sci 3(e10):1–36. Google Scholar
  41. Howard TJ, Culley SJ, Dekoninck E (2008) Describing the creative design process by the integration of engineering design and cognitive psychology literature. Des Stud 29(2):160–180. Google Scholar
  42. Howard TJ, Dekoninck EA, Culley SJ (2010) The use of creative stimuli at early stages of industrial product innovation. Res Eng Des 21(4):263–274. Google Scholar
  43. Hultén M, Artman H, House D (2018) A model to analyse students’ cooperative idea generation in conceptual design. Int J Technol Des Educ 28(2):451–470. Google Scholar
  44. Jiang H, Gero JS, Yen CC (2014) Exploring designing styles using a problem-solution division. In: Gero JS (ed) Design computing and cognition’12. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 79–94Google Scholar
  45. Jin Y, Benami O (2010) Creative patterns and stimulation in conceptual design. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 24(2):191–209. Google Scholar
  46. Jin Y, Chusilp P (2006) Study of mental iteration in different design situations. Des Stud 27(1):25–55. Google Scholar
  47. Kan JWT, Gero JS, Tang HH (2011) Measuring cognitive design activity changes during an industry team brainstorming session. In: Gero JS (ed) Design computing and cognition’10. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 621–640Google Scholar
  48. Kannengiesser U, Gero JS (2015) Is designing independent of domain? Comparing models of engineering, software and service design. Res Eng Des 26(3):253–275. Google Scholar
  49. Khaidzir KAM, Lawson B (2013) The cognitive construct of design conversation. Res Eng Des 24(4):331–347. Google Scholar
  50. Klonek FE, Quera V, Burba M, Kauffeld S (2016) Group interactions and time: using sequential analysis to study group dynamics in project meetings. Group Dyn Theor Res 20(3):209–222. Google Scholar
  51. Kroll E (2013) Design theory and conceptual design: contrasting functional decomposition and morphology with parameter analysis. Res Eng Des 24(2):165–183. Google Scholar
  52. Kruger C, Cross N (2006) Solution driven versus problem driven design: strategies and outcomes. Des Stud 27(5):527–548. Google Scholar
  53. Kurakawa K (2004) A scenario-driven conceptual design information model and its formation. Res Eng Des 15(2):122–137. Google Scholar
  54. Lawson B, Dorst K (2009) Design expertise, 1st edn. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  55. Liikkanen LA, Perttula M (2009) Exploring problem decomposition in conceptual design among novice designers. Des Stud 30(1):38–59. Google Scholar
  56. Liikkanen LA, Perttula M (2010) Inspiring design idea generation: insights from a memory-search perspective. J Eng Des 21(5):545–560. Google Scholar
  57. Liu A, Lu SC-Y (2014) Alternation of analysis and synthesis for concept generation. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 63(1):177–180. MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  58. Liu YC, Bligh T, Chakrabarti A (2003) Towards an “ideal” approach for concept generation. Des Stud 24(4):341–355. Google Scholar
  59. López-Mesa B, Mulet E, Vidal R, Thompson G (2011) Effects of additional stimuli on idea-finding in design teams. J Eng Des 22(1):31–54. Google Scholar
  60. Macmillan S, Steele J, Austin S et al (2001) Development and verification of a generic framework for conceptual design. Des Stud 22(2):169–191. Google Scholar
  61. Maher ML, Tang H (2003) Co-evolution as a computational and cognitive model of design. Res Eng Des 14(1):47–64. Google Scholar
  62. Maher ML, Poon J, Boulanger S (1996) Formalising design exploration as co-evolution: a combined gene approach. In: Gero JS, Sudweeks F (eds) Advances in formal design methods for CAD. IFIP—the international federation for information processing. Springer, Boston, pp 3–30Google Scholar
  63. Mc Neill T, Gero JS, Warren J (1998) Understanding conceptual electronic design using protocol analysis. Res Eng Des 10(3):129–140. Google Scholar
  64. McComb C, Cagan J, Kotovsky K (2015) Lifting the veil: drawing insights about design teams from a cofnitively-inspired computational model. Des Stud 40:119–142. Google Scholar
  65. McDonnell J (1997) Descriptive models for interpreting design. Des Stud 18(4):457–473. Google Scholar
  66. McMahon C (2015) Design informatics: supporting engineering design processes with information technology. J Indian Inst Sci 95(4):365–377Google Scholar
  67. McTeague C, Duffy A, Campbell G et al (2017) An exploration of design synthesis. In: Maier A, Škec S, Kim H et al (eds) Proceedings of the 21st international conference on engineering design (ICED 17) vol 8: human behaviour in design. The Design Society, Glasgow, pp 279–288Google Scholar
  68. Nikander JB, Liikkanen LA, Laakso M (2014) The preference effect in design concept evaluation. Des Stud 35(5):473–499. Google Scholar
  69. Petersson AM, Lundberg J (2018) Developing an ideation method to be used in cross-functional inter-organizational teams by means of action design research. Res Eng Des 29(3):433–457. Google Scholar
  70. Quera V, Bakeman R, Gnisci A (2007) Observer agreement for event sequences: methods and software for sequence alignment and reliability estimates. Behav Res 39(1):39–49. Google Scholar
  71. Reymen IMMJ, Hammer DK, Kroes PA et al (2006) A domain-independent descriptive design model and its application to structured reflection on design processes. Res Eng Des 16(4):147–173. Google Scholar
  72. Roozenburg NFM, Eekels J (1995) Product design: fundamentals and methods, 2nd edn. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  73. Sarkar P, Chakrabarti A (2014) Ideas generated in conceptual design and their effects on creativity. Res Eng Des 25(3):185–201. Google Scholar
  74. Sarkar P, Chakrabarti A (2017) A model for the process of idea generation. Des J 20(2):239–257. Google Scholar
  75. Sauder J, Jin Y (2016) A qualitative study of collaborative stimulation in group design thinking. Des Sci 2(e4):1–25. Google Scholar
  76. Smith RP, Tjandra P (1998) Experimental observation of iteration in engineering design. Res Eng Des 10(2):107–117. Google Scholar
  77. Smithers T (2002) Synthesis in designing. In: Gero JS (ed) Artificial intelligence in design’02. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 3–24. Google Scholar
  78. Snider C, Dekoninck E, Culley S (2016) Beyond the concept: characterisations of later-stage creative behaviour in design. Res Eng Des 27(3):265–289. Google Scholar
  79. Sonalkar N, Mabogunje A, Leifer L (2013) Developing a visual representation to characterize moment-to-moment concept generation in design teams. Int J Des Creat Innov 1(2):93–108. Google Scholar
  80. Srinivasan V, Chakrabarti A (2010a) An integrated model of designing. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 10(3):031013. Google Scholar
  81. Srinivasan V, Chakrabarti A (2010b) Investigating novelty-outcome relationships in engineering design. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 24(2):161–178. Google Scholar
  82. Stempfle J, Badke-Schaub P (2002) Thinking in design teams—an analysis of team communication. Des Stud 23(5):473–496. Google Scholar
  83. Stompff G, Smulders F, Henze L (2016) Surprises are the benefits: reframing in multidisciplinary design teams. Des Stud 47:187–214. Google Scholar
  84. Sung E, Kelley TR (2018) Identifying design process patterns: a sequential analysis study of design thinking. Int J Technol Des Educ. (in press) Google Scholar
  85. Toh CA, Miller SR (2015) How engineering teams select design concepts: a view through the lens of creativity. Des Stud 38:111–138. Google Scholar
  86. Toh CA, Miller SR (2016a) Creativity in design teams: the influence of personality traits and risk attitudes on creative concept selection. Res Eng Des 27(1):73–89. Google Scholar
  87. Toh CA, Miller SR (2016b) Choosing creativity: the role of individual risk and ambiguity aversion on creative concept selection in engineering design. Res Eng Des 27(3):195–219. Google Scholar
  88. Toh CA, Miller SR, Okudan Kremer GE (2014) The impact of team-based product dissection on design novelty. J Mech Des 136(4):041004. Google Scholar
  89. Vasconcelos LA, Crilly N (2016) Inspiration and fixation: questions, methods, findings, and challenges. Des Stud 42:1–32. Google Scholar
  90. Visser W (2009) Design: one, but in different forms. Des Stud 30(3):187–223. Google Scholar
  91. Vuletic T, Duffy A, Hay L et al (2018) The challenges in computer supported conceptual engineering design. Comput Ind 95:22–37. Google Scholar
  92. Watts RD (1966) The elements of design. In: Gregory SA (ed) The design method. Springer, Boston, pp 85–95Google Scholar
  93. Wiltschnig S, Christensen BT, Ball LJ (2013) Collaborative problem-solution co-evolution in creative design. Des Stud 34(5):515–542. Google Scholar
  94. Wodehouse AJ, Ion WJ (2010) Information use in conceptual design: existing taxonomies and new approaches. Int J Des 4(3):53–65Google Scholar
  95. Wynn D, Clarkson J (2005) Models of designing. In: Clarkson J, Eckert C (eds) Design process improvement: a review of current practice. Springer, London, pp 34–59Google Scholar
  96. Wynn D, Clarkson P (2017) Process models in design and development. Res Eng Des 29(2):161–202. Google Scholar
  97. Wynn DC, Eckert CM (2017) Perspectives on iteration in design and development. Res Eng Des 28(2):153–184. Google Scholar
  98. Yilmaz S, Daly SR (2016) Feedback in concept development: comparing design disciplines. Des Stud 45(A):137–158. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of DesignFaculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of ZagrebZagrebCroatia
  2. 2.Technical University of Denmark, DTU Management EngineeringLyngbyDenmark
  3. 3.Division of Humans and Technology - Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social SciencesLuleå University of TechnologyLuleåSweden

Personalised recommendations