Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Capturing Collaboration with Interaction Dynamics Notation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Design Thinking Research

Part of the book series: Understanding Innovation ((UNDINNO))

  • 1828 Accesses

Abstract

Interaction Dynamics Notation (IDN), introduced by Sonalkar et al. in (Int J Des Creat Innov 1(2), 93–108, 2013), is a notation system for team collaboration. In the years since publication, it has garnered much interest and follow-up work. In this chapter, we consolidate much of the known work performed using IDN. We begin with an introduction to IDN, first abstractly through its description, origin, and symbol set, then concretely through short portions of team discussion. Then, we review research that references IDN, first detailing what is known about and through IDN, and second how IDN has been perceived and how it has inspired other work. We also report descriptive statistics of the symbols produced during collaboration, revealing patterns that help characterize the sequence of IDN symbols. Finally, we discuss two directions for future work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adly Taha, F. M., Adly Taha, R. M., West, K., Fazelpour, M., Herrmann, J. W., & Polvinale, M. A. (2019). An automated approach to recording and analyzing design activities using a graphical user interface. Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, 2B–2019, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2019-98226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, E., Eppler, M. J., & Bresciani, S. (2019).Visual replay methodology: A mixed methods approach for group discussion analysis. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(1), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816664479

  • Arlitt, R. M., Nix, A. A., Sen, C., & Stone, R. B. (2016). Discovery of mental metadata used for analogy formation in function-based design. Journal of Mechanical Design, Transactions of the ASME, 138(10), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4034090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Björklund, T. A., Hannukainen, P., & Manninen, T. (2018). Measuring the impact of design, service design and design thinking in organizations on different maturity levels. ServDes2018 - Service Design Proof of Concept, (June 2018), 500–511. Retrieved from http://www.ep.liu.se/ecp/article.asp?issue=150&article=040&volume=

  • Bracken, J., Jablokow, K., Glavin, F. X., Henderson, D., & Erdman, A. M. (2019). DETC2019-97704 a pilot study of student design teams. 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, P. A. (2004). Spaces, domains, and meaning. Essays in cognitive semiotics, 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cagan, J., Dinar, M., Shah, J. J., Leifer, L., Linsey, J., Smith, S. M., & Vargas-Hernandez, N. (2013). Empirical studies of design thinking: Past, present, future. In Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, 5 https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2013-13302

  • Camburn, B. A., Auernhammer, J. M., Sng, K. H. E., Mignone, P. J., Arlitt, R. M., Perez, K. B., … Wood, K. L. (2017). Design innovation: A study of integrated practice. Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, 7, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC201768382.

  • Cash, P., & Štorga, M. (2015). Multifaceted assessment of ideation: Using networks to link ideation and design activity. Journal of Engineering Design, 26(10–12), 391–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2015.1070813

  • Dinar, M., Shah, J. J., Cagan, J., Leifer, L., Linsey, J., Smith, S. M., & Hernandez, N. V. (2015). Empirical studies of designer thinking: Past, present, and future. Journal of Mechanical Design, Transactions of the ASME, 137(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4029025

  • Dolata, M., Uebernickel, F., & Schwabe, G. (2017). The power of words: Towards a methodology for progress monitoring in design thinking projects. Proceedings Der 13. Internationale Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik (WI), (February), 1156–1170. Retrieved from http://www.wi2017.ch/de/proceedings

  • Donald, M. (2000). The central role of culture in cognitive evolution: A reflection on the myth of the “isolated mind.”. In L. Nucci, G. B. Saxe, & E. Turiel (Eds.), Culture, thought, and development. Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endrejat, P., Meinecke, A., & Kauffeld, S. (2019). It all starts with a good idea: A new coding system for analyzing idea finding interactions (AIFI). Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 6, 305–314. https://doi.org/10.24251/hicss.2019.038

  • Feng, B. (2013). Design of a therapeutic light device using Kano’s model and a decision-making method based on HOQ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Georgiev, G., & Taura, T. (2014). Polysemy in design review conversations. Design Thinking Research Symposium, (2003), 1–19. Retrieved from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/dtrs/2014/Identity/2

  • Goldschmidt, G. (2014). Linkography: Unfolding the design process.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, D., Booth, T., Jablokow, K., & Sonalkar, N. (2020). Best fits and dark horses: Can design teams tell the difference? 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2020-22589

  • Horvat, N., Škec, S., Perišić, M. M., & Bojčetić, N. (2020). Relating problem-solving approach to turn-taking in communication of design teams. Tehnicki Vjesnik, 27(3), 703–710. https://doi.org/10.17559/TV-20180911161642

  • Jablokow, K. W., Sonalkar, N., Avdeev, I., Thompson, B. D., Megahed, M. M., & Pachpute, P. S. (2018). Exploring the dynamic interactions and cognitive characteristics of NSF innovation corps (I-Corps) teams. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings, 2018-June. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--30497

  • Jablokow, K. W., Sonalkar, N., Edelman, J., Mabogunje, A., & Leifer, L. (2019a). Investigating the influence of designers’ cognitive characteristics and interaction behaviors in design concept generation. Journal of Mechanical Design, Transactions of the ASME, 141(9). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4043316

  • Jablokow, K. W., Vora, A., Henderson, D. A., Bracken, J., Sonalkar, N., & Harris, S. (2019b). Beyond Likert scales: Exploring designers’ perceptions through visual reflection activities. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--32150

  • Ju, W., Shluzas, L. A., & Leifer, L. (2016). People with a paradigm: The center for design research’s contributions to practice. 209–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koenig, C., & Lim, A. (2018). IDN dialogue act classification with conditional random field and recurrent neural network.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luck, R. (2014). Seeing architecture in action: Designing, evoking, and depicting space and form in embodied interaction. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 2(3), 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2013.875488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lugnet, J., Ericson, Å., & Wenngren, J. (2020). Innovation supports for small-scale development in rural regions: A create, build, test and learn approach. International Journal of Product Development, 24(1), 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPD.2020.106446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mabogunje, A., Sonalkar, N., & Leifer, L. (2016). Design thinking: A new foundational science for engineering. International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(3), 1540–1556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mabogunje A., Sonalkar N., Miller, M. & Bailenson, J. (2021) Design team performance: Context, measurement, and the prospective impact of social virtual reality, to appear in Meinel C. & Leifer L. (Eds.), Design thinking research. Springer, Cham. (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinec, T. (2019). A model of information processing and interactions in teams developing processing and interactions in teams developing technical systems. University of Zagreb.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinec, T., Horvat, N., Škec, S., & Štorga, M. (2018). Verbal engagement in teams solving a conceptual design task. Proceedings of International Design Conference, DESIGN, 5, 2075–2086. https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0540

  • Martinec, T., Škec, S., Horvat, N., & Štorga, M. (2019a). A state-transition model of team conceptual design activity. Research in Engineering Design, 30(1), 103–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-018-00305-1

  • Martinec, T., Škec, S., Šklebar, J., & Štorga, M. (2019b). Applying engineering design ontology for content analysis of team conceptual design activity. Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED, 2019-Augus(AUGUST), 2467–2476. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.253

  • Martinec, T., Škec, S., Perišíc, M. M., & Štorga, M. (2020). Revisiting problem-solution co-evolution in the context of team conceptual design activity. Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 10(18). https://doi.org/10.3390/APP10186303

  • McInnis, B., Xu, X., & Dow, S. P. (2018). How features of a civic design competition influence the collective understanding of a problem. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2(CSCW). https://doi.org/10.1145/3274389

  • Menold, J., & Jablokow, K. (2019). Exploring the effects of cognitive style diversity and self-efficacy beliefs on final design attributes in student design teams. Design Studies, 60, 71–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.08.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menold, J., Starkey, E., & Mccomb, C. (2020). Analyzing the characteristics of cognitive-assistant-facilitated ideation groups. 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moser, M., Rowland, D. C., & Moser, E. I. (2015). Place cells, grid cells, and memory. 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • OBS Studio Contributors. (2020). Open Broadcaster Software. Retrieved January 28, 2020, from. https://obsproject.com/

  • Paulsen, H., Klonek, F., Meinnecke, A., Schneider, K., Liskin, O., & Kauffeld, S. (n.d.). Driving and hindering forces in group discussions: Analyzing change and sustain talk in a software engineering project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schinko-Fischli, S. (2018). Applied improvisation for coaches and leaders: A practical guide for creative collaboration. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonalkar, N., Mabogunje, A., Miller, M., Bailenson, J., & Leifer, L. (n.d.). Augmenting learning of design teamork using immersive virtual reality. 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonalkar, N., Mabogunje, A., & Leifer, L. (2013). Developing a visual representation to characterize moment-to-moment concept generation in design teams. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 1(2), 93–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonalkar, N., Jung, M., Mabogunje, A., & Leifer, L. (2014a). A structure for design theory. An Anthology of Theories and Models of Design, 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6338-1_3.

  • Sonalkar, N., Mabogunje, A., & Leifer, L. (2014b). Analyzing the display of professional knowledge through interpersonal interactions in design reviews. DTRS 10: Design Thinking Research Symposium 2014, (1992), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonalkar, N., Mabogunje, A., Pai, G., Krishnan, A., & Roth, B. (2015). Diagnostics for design thinking teams. Design Thinking Research: Making Design Thinking Foundational, 1–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19641-1.

  • Sonalkar, N., Mabogunje, A., Hoster, H., & Roth, B. (2016a). Developing instrumentation for design thinking team performance. Design Thinking Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40382-3_15

  • Sonalkar, N., Mabogunje, A., Leifer, L., & Roth, B. (2016b). Visualising professional vision interactions in design reviews. CoDesign, 12(1–2), 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2015.1135245

  • Sonalkar, N., Jablokow, K., Edelman, J., Mabogunje, A., & Leifer, L. (2017). Detc2017–68239 design whodunit: The relationship between individual characteristics. 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonalkar, N., Jahanikia, S., Xie, H., Geniesse, C., Ayub, R., Beaty, R., & Saggar, M. (2020). Mining the role of design reflection and associated brain dynamics in creativity. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28960-7_10

  • Sosa, R. (2019). Accretion theory of ideation: Evaluation regimes for ideation stages. Design Science, 5(Yang 2009), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2019.22

  • Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 49–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, B. (2019). Mind in motion: how action shape thought. Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wulvik, A., Jensen, M. B., & Steinert, M. (2017). Temporal static visualisation of transcripts for pre-analysis of video material: Identifying modes of information sharing. Analysing Design Thinking: Studies of Cross-Cultural Co-Creation, pp. 271–287. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315208169.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Virtual Human Interaction Lab, Department of Communication, Stanford University, McClatchy Hall, Room 411, Stanford, CA, 94305-2050, USA

    Mark Roman Miller, Will Gutzman & Jeremy N. Bailenson

  2. Center for Design Research, Stanford University, Building 560, 424 Panama Mall, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA

    Ade Mabogunje & Neeraj Sonalkar

Authors
  1. Mark Roman Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Will Gutzman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeremy N. Bailenson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ade Mabogunje
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Neeraj Sonalkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Roman Miller .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Hasso Plattner Institute for Digital Engineering, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany

    Christoph Meinel

  2. Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Larry Leifer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Miller, M.R., Gutzman, W., Bailenson, J.N., Mabogunje, A., Sonalkar, N. (2021). Capturing Collaboration with Interaction Dynamics Notation. In: Meinel, C., Leifer, L. (eds) Design Thinking Research . Understanding Innovation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76324-4_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation