Abstract
Design-thinking is an inductive and participatory process in which designers are required to manage constraints, generate solutions, and follow project timelines in order to complete project goals. The researchers used this exploration study to look at how designers in various disciplinary fields approach design projects. Designers were asked to describe a project and a decision that they had to make previously. Decisions were analyzed to determine whether they were ready-made versus custom-made solutions. The process by which the designers arrived at the decisions was categorized as idea-imposition or discovery. Results indicated that designers work with multiple constraints while designing, and the majority used a custom-made solution following a discovery process.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Boling, E., Easterling, W., Hardre, P., Howard, C., & Roman, T. (2011). Addie: Perspectives in transition. Educational Technology 51(5), 34-38.
Cennamo, K., & Brandt, C. (2012). The “right kind of telling”: Knowledge building in the academic design studio. Educational Technology Research & Development, 60(5), 839 - 858.
Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking. New York: Berg.
Delattre, M., Ocler, R., Moulette, P., & Rymeyko, K. (2009). Singularity of qualitative research: From collecting information to producing results. Tamara Journal of Critical Organization Inquiry, 7(3): 33-50.
Hale, J.E., Hale, D.P., & Dulek, R.E. (2006). Decision processes during crisis response: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Management Issues, 18(3), 301-320.
Hubka, V. & Eder, W.E. (2003). Pedagogics of design education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 19(6), 799-809.
Jonassen, D.H. (2012). Designing for decisionmaking. Educational Technology Research & Development, 60(2), 341-359.
Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Lincoln, Y.S, & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lowgren, J., & Stolterman, E. (2004). Thoughtful interaction design: A design perspective on information technology. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Means, B., Salas, E., Crandall, B., & Jacobs, T.O. (1993). Training decision makers for the real world. In G.A. Klein, J.Orasanu, R., Calderwood, & C.E. Zsambok (Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and methods (pp. 306-326). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D. & Theoret, A. (1976). The structure of “unstructured” decision processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 246-275.
Mintzberg, H. & Westley, F. (2001). Decision making: It’s not what you think. MIT Sloan Management Review. 42(3), 89-93.
Nutt, P.C. (2002). Making strategic choices. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 67-96.
Nutt, P.C. (2008). Investigating the success of decision-making processes. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 425-455.
Stefaniak, J., Baaki, J., & Blake, A.M. (2012). An examination of the decision-making process used by organizational leaders during the great recession. Performance Improvement Quarterly 24(4), 81-102.
Tracey, M.W., & Boling, E. (in press). Preparing instructional designers and educational technologists: Traditional and emerging perspectives. In M. Spector, D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M.J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology.
Visscher-Voerman, I., & Gustafson, K.L. (2004). Paradigms in the theory and practice education and training design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 69-89.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stefaniak, J.E., Tracey, M.W. An examination of the decision-making process used by designers in multiple disciplines. TECHTRENDS TECH TRENDS 58, 80–89 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0789-7
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0789-7