Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T03:52:20.148Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MODELLING PROPORTIONS AND SEQUENCES OF OPERATIONS IN TEAM DESIGN ACTIVITIES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Tomislav Martinec ,
Stanko Škec ,
Fanika Lukačević  and
Mario Štorga
Tomislav Martinec*
Affiliation:
University of Zagreb
Stanko Škec
Affiliation:
University of Zagreb
Fanika Lukačević
Affiliation:
University of Zagreb
Mario Štorga
Affiliation:
University of Zagreb Luleå University of Technology
*
Martinec, Tomislav, University of Zagreb, FSB, Department of Design, Croatia, tomislav.martinec@fsb.hr

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The presented research aims at modelling and formalising the process of team design activity as an interplay between the evolution of design problems and solutions. The motivation founds primarily on a presumption that there exist regularities in designing which can be captured and formalised using the appropriate models. The study thus investigates whether the identified design operation proportions and sequence probabilities are consistent throughout the different parts of team conceptual design activities. It does so by exploring the utility of mathematical models built based on the correlations and statistically significant sequences underlying the previously identified designing patterns. The developed mathematical model was tested by replicating moving-average analyses of design operation proportions and sequences, which were originally observed in the protocol analysis study. A close fit was found between the simulated and the observed data, particularly in providing insights regarding operation patterns and proportion trends. The presented models and modelling methodology are potentially an appropriate means for the next steps in describing, and consequently predicting and supporting team design activity dynamics.

Keywords

Design processDesign operationsProcess modellingTeamworkProcess patterns
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 2187 - 2196
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Cash, P.J., Hicks, B.J. and Culley, S.J. (2013), “A comparison of designer activity using core Design Situations in the laboratory and practice”, Design Studies, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 575–611.10.1016/j.destud.2013.03.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, K.Y., Kwong, C.K., Dillon, T.S. and Fung, K.Y. (2011), “An intelligent fuzzy regression approach for affective product design that captures nonlinearity and fuzziness”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 523–542.10.1080/09544820903550924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowder, R.M., Robinson, M. a., Hughes, H.P.N. and Sim, Y.-W. (2012), “The Development of an Agent-Based Modeling Framework for Simulating Engineering Team Work”, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 1425–1439.10.1109/TSMCA.2012.2199304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorst, K. and Cross, N. (2001), “Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution”, Design Studies, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 425–437.10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorineschi, L., Rotini, F. and Rissone, P. (2016), “A new conceptual design approach for overcoming the flaws of functional decomposition and morphology”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 438–468.10.1080/09544828.2016.1160275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, J.S. and Jiang, H. (2015), “Exploring the Design Cognition of Concept Design Reviews Using the FBS-Based Protocol Analysis”, in Adams, R., Buzzanell, P. and Siddiqui, J. (Eds.), Analyzing Design Review Conversations, Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, pp. 177–194.Google Scholar
Gero, J.S. and Kan, J.W.T. (2016), “Scientific Models from Empirical Design Research”, in Cash, P., Stanković, T. and Štorga, M. (Eds.), Experimental Design Research: Approaches, Perspectives, Applications, Springer, Cham, pp. 253–270.Google Scholar
Gero, J.S. and Kannengiesser, U. (2014), “The function-behaviour-structure ontology of design”, in Chakrabarti, A. and Blessing, L. (Eds.), An Anthology of Theories and Models of Design, Springer, London, pp. 263–283.10.1007/978-1-4471-6338-1_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (2014), Linkography: Unfolding the Design Process, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.10.7551/mitpress/9455.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, Y.-L., Cook, K., Mason, G. and Shuman, T.R. (2018), “Enhance Engineering Design Education in the Middle Years With Authentic Engineering Problems”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 140 No. 12, pp. 122001–122001–9.10.1115/1.4040880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsu, Y. (2017), “Work values, conflict, and team cooperation among engineering designers”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 28 No. 10-12, pp. 799–820.10.1080/09544828.2017.1397268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hultén, M., Artman, H. and House, D. (2018), “A model to analyse students’ cooperative idea generation in conceptual design”, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 451–470.10.1007/s10798-016-9384-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maarten Bonnema, G. and van Houten, F.J.A.M. (2006), “Use of models in conceptual design”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 549–562.10.1080/09544820600664994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinec, T., Škec, S., Horvat, N. and Štorga, M. (2019), “A state-transition model of team conceptual design activity”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 103–132.10.1007/s00163-018-00305-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinec, T., Škec, S., Perišić, M.M. and Štorga, M. (2020), “Revisiting Problem-Solution Co-Evolution in the Context of Team Conceptual Design Activity”, Applied Sciences, Vol. 10 No. 18, p. 6303.Google Scholar
Mc Neill, T., Gero, J.S. and Warren, J. (1998), “Understanding conceptual electronic design using protocol analysis”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 129–140.10.1007/BF01607155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McComb, C., Cagan, J. and Kotovsky, K. (2017), “Utilizing Markov Chains to Understand Operation Sequencing in Design Tasks”, Design Computing and Cognition ’16, Springer, Cham, pp. 401–418.Google Scholar
Ostergaard, K.J. and Summers, J.D. (2009), “Development of a systematic classification and taxonomy of collaborative design activities”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 57–81.10.1080/09544820701499654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raina, A., McComb, C. and Cagan, J. (2019), “Learning to Design From Humans: Imitating Human Designers Through Deep Learning”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 141 No. 11, available at: https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4044256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reymen, I.M.M.J., Hammer, D.K., Kroes, P.A., Van Aken, J.E., Dorst, C.H., Bax, M.F.T. and Basten, T. (2006), “A domain-independent descriptive design model and its application to structured reflection on design processes”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 147–173.10.1007/s00163-006-0011-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, M. A., Sparrow, P.R., Clegg, C. and Birdi, K. (2005), “Design engineering competencies: future requirements and predicted changes in the forthcoming decade”, Design Studies, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 123–153.10.1016/j.destud.2004.09.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, J.J., Kulkarni, S. V. and Vargas-Hernandez, N. (2000), “Evaluation of Idea Generation Methods for Conceptual Design: Effectiveness Metrics and Design of Experiments”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 122 No. 4, pp. 377–384.10.1115/1.1315592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stempfle, J. and Badke-Schaub, P. (2002), “Thinking in design teams - an analysis of team communication”, Design Studies, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 473–496.10.1016/S0142-694X(02)00004-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teetor, P. (2011), R Cookbook, O'Reilly, Sebastopol, CA.Google Scholar
Vuletic, T., Duffy, A., Hay, L., McTeague, C., Pidgeon, L. and Grealy, M. (2018), “The challenges in computer supported conceptual engineering design”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 95, pp. 22–37.10.1016/j.compind.2017.11.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wodehouse, A.J. and Ion, W.J. (2010), “Information use in conceptual design: Existing taxonomies and new approaches”, International Journal of Design, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 53–65.Google Scholar