The Influence of the Designer’s Expertise on the Design Process

  • Manjula B. Waldron
  • Kenneth J. Waldron


Designers bring their prior experience and expertise to the design process whenever they read drawings, draw, or design or when they observe. It is for this reason that one cannot separate the process from the expertise of the designer. What is designed is integrally tied to the designer. The question then arises: “Are there notable differences between experienced and not-so-experienced designers, and if there are, what form do they take?” In this chapter we summarize our previous work on identifying the differences between the approaches of designers with different levels of expertise. These include the differences in recall of drawings, in reasoning about motion, in reasoning about drawings, and in designing. We present the implications of this work on the design process.


Mechanical Device Device Type Discriminant Function Analysis Design Heuristic Forward Reasoning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adelson, B. (1981). Problem solving and the development of abstract categories in programming languages. Memory and Cognition, 9, 422–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adelson, B. (1984). When novices surpass experts: The difficulty of a task may increase with expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 483–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akin, O. (1978). How do architects design. In Latombe (Ed.), Artificial Intelligence and Pattern Recognition in Computer Aided Design, IFIP North Holland.Google Scholar
  4. Chase, W. G., and Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chase, W. G., and Ericsson, K. A. (1981). Skilled memory. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive Skills and Their Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Chovan, J. C., and Waldron, M. B. (1990). The use of function and form when reading mechanical engineering drawings by experts and non-experts. Proceedings of the Second International ASME Conference on Design Theory and Methodology. Chicago, pp. 137–143.Google Scholar
  7. Cooper, L. (1983). Flexibility in representational systems. In J. Beck, B. Hope, and A. Rozenfeld (Eds.), Human and Machine Vision. Orlando, Fl: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Earle, J. (1985). Engineering Design Graphics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Cunningham, J. J., and Dixon, J. R. (1988). Designing with features: The origin of features. Proceedings 1988 ASME Computers in Engineering Conf. pp. 237–243.Google Scholar
  10. Cutkosky, M. R., Tenenbaum, J. M., and Muller, D. (1988). Features in process-based design. Proceedings 1988 ASME Computers in Engineering Conf. pp. 557–562.Google Scholar
  11. Dixon, J. R., Cunningham, J. J., and Simmons, M. K. (1987). Research on designing with features. IFIP WG 5.2 First International Workshop on Intelligent CAD. Cambridge, MA, Oct. 6–8.Google Scholar
  12. Hegarty, M., Just, M. A., and Morrison, I. R. (1988). Mental models of mechanical systems: Individual differences in qualitative and quantitative reasoning. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 191–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Luby, S. C., Dixon, J. R., and Simmons, M. K. (1986). Designing with features: Creating and using a features data base for evaluation of manufacturability of castings. Proceedings 1986 ASME Computers in Engineering Conf. pp. 285–292.Google Scholar
  14. Neves, D. M., and Anderson, J. R. (1981). Knowledge compilation: Mechanisms for the automatization of cognitive skills. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.). Cognitive skills and their acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Newell, A., and Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Reitman, J. S. (1976). Skilled perception in go: Deducing memory structures from inter-response times. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 336–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Stauffer, L. A. and Ullman, D. G. (1988). A comparison of the results of empirical studies into the mechanical design process, Design Studies, 9 (2), 107–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Waldron, M. B. (1989). Observations on management of initial design specifications in conceptual mechanical design. Engineering Design, Vol. 1, Proceedings ICED 89, Harrogate, pp. 189–201.Google Scholar
  19. Waldron, M. B., and Herren, L. T. (1994). The effect of expertise on judgments requiring spatial reasoning. Unpublished paper, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  20. Waldron, M. B., Jelinek, W., Owen, D. H., and Waldron, K. J. (1987). Strategy differences between expert and naive mechanical designers. In ICED Proceedings 1987, Boston, MA, pp. 86–94.Google Scholar
  21. Waldron, M. B., and Waldron, K. J. (1988). A time sequence study of a complex mechanical system design, Design Studies, 9 (2), 95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Waldron, M. B., Waldron, K. J., and Abdelhamied, K. (1989). The differences in reading schematic drawings of mechanisms by expert and naive mechanical designers. Proceedings of the First International ASME Conference on Design Theory and Methodology. Montreal, pp. 15–20.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manjula B. Waldron
  • Kenneth J. Waldron

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations