Connecting Design Actions, Reasoning, and Outcomes in Concept-Selection

Yakira Mirabito, K. Goucher-Lambert
{"title":"Connecting Design Actions, Reasoning, and Outcomes in Concept-Selection","authors":"Yakira Mirabito, K. Goucher-Lambert","doi":"10.1115/detc2021-71830","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Final concepts are often not the most creative or innovative design within the solution space. The purpose of this research is to gain insight into the decisions made in concept selection. In particular, we studied how designers link multiple decision-making elements together, including: actions (what people do), reasoning (why they do it), and design outcomes (an objective measure of engineering performance). Fifty-seven participants were tasked with solving a design challenge relating to a robotic gripper by selecting a design within a predefined design space. Each design had a corresponding measure (termed “success rate”) which enabled each designer’s performance to be quantified and compared against other designers. The task was hosted on an interactive interface in which design actions were collected. A post-task survey probed for the reasoning behind design actions. Characterization of decision-making behavior and reasoning was rooted in prior design literature. Design actions were quantified concerning the degree of design space explored and the decision-making strategies employed. Key results include design strategies such as manipulation techniques, the impact of maximum observed success rates, and a willingness to submit an alternative solution which influenced design outcomes. Although designer preferences validated the design strategies identified, there was no correlation between the decision factors considered and improved outcomes. The methods and findings from this work assessed the underlying dynamics when engineers selected less innovative or creative solutions and recommended decision-making strategies that should be considered to improve design outcomes.","PeriodicalId":261968,"journal":{"name":"Volume 6: 33rd International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology (DTM)","volume":"5 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Volume 6: 33rd International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology (DTM)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2021-71830","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Final concepts are often not the most creative or innovative design within the solution space. The purpose of this research is to gain insight into the decisions made in concept selection. In particular, we studied how designers link multiple decision-making elements together, including: actions (what people do), reasoning (why they do it), and design outcomes (an objective measure of engineering performance). Fifty-seven participants were tasked with solving a design challenge relating to a robotic gripper by selecting a design within a predefined design space. Each design had a corresponding measure (termed “success rate”) which enabled each designer’s performance to be quantified and compared against other designers. The task was hosted on an interactive interface in which design actions were collected. A post-task survey probed for the reasoning behind design actions. Characterization of decision-making behavior and reasoning was rooted in prior design literature. Design actions were quantified concerning the degree of design space explored and the decision-making strategies employed. Key results include design strategies such as manipulation techniques, the impact of maximum observed success rates, and a willingness to submit an alternative solution which influenced design outcomes. Although designer preferences validated the design strategies identified, there was no correlation between the decision factors considered and improved outcomes. The methods and findings from this work assessed the underlying dynamics when engineers selected less innovative or creative solutions and recommended decision-making strategies that should be considered to improve design outcomes.
在概念选择中连接设计行为、推理和结果
最终概念通常不是解决方案空间中最具创造性或创新性的设计。本研究的目的是深入了解概念选择中的决策。特别是,我们研究了设计师如何将多个决策元素联系在一起,包括:行动(人们做什么),推理(他们为什么这样做)和设计结果(工程性能的客观衡量标准)。57名参与者的任务是通过在预定义的设计空间中选择一种设计来解决与机器人抓取器相关的设计挑战。每个设计都有相应的衡量标准(称为“成功率”),这使得每个设计师的表现能够被量化,并与其他设计师进行比较。该任务驻留在收集设计操作的交互界面上。任务后调查探讨了设计行为背后的原因。决策行为和推理的表征根植于先前的设计文献。根据设计空间的探索程度和所采用的决策策略对设计行为进行量化。关键结果包括设计策略,如操作技术,最大观察成功率的影响,以及提交影响设计结果的替代解决方案的意愿。尽管设计师偏好验证了所确定的设计策略,但所考虑的决策因素与改善的结果之间没有相关性。这项工作的方法和发现评估了工程师在选择创新性或创造性较低的解决方案时的潜在动态,并建议了应该考虑的决策策略,以改善设计结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信