Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T08:13:00.712Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

REMOTE BRAINSTORMING: METHODOLOGICAL INTERVENTIONS IN DESIGNING FROM A DISTANCE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Lawrence Domingo ,
Marius Gutzeit ,
Larry Leifer  and
Jan Michel Kurt Auernhammer
Lawrence Domingo
Affiliation:
Stanford University;
Marius Gutzeit
Affiliation:
Stanford University; Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
Larry Leifer
Affiliation:
Stanford University;
Jan Michel Kurt Auernhammer*
Affiliation:
Stanford University;
*
Auernhammer, Jan Michel Kurt, Stanford University, Mechanical Engineering, United States of America, [email protected]

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.

This paper examines the immediate effects of group methods in facilitating remote team collaboration. We recruited seven teams with prior experience working together. All teams completed two current, complex, and open-ended design challenges using remote tools. We examined design activities before and after teams were given a design method intervention. The interventions were a Brainstorming Method to promote divergent thinking and the Five-Whys method to promote analytical thinking. Using OpenFace, we observed changes in emotion by examining facial expressions. We found that the brainstorming intervention did not have a change in ideation performance and the problem analysis intervention had a decrease in ideation performance. Teams used digital media to facilitate communication but were constrained by the media's tools. Our results can inform teams in organizations interested in promoting divergent thinking to not expect immediate improvements in ideation performance following the introduction of a design method. Future research is required to identify relevant abilities and social skills needed to facilitate remote ideation through design methods.

Keywords

CreativityDesign methodsCollaborative designRemoteBrainstorming
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 2541 - 2550
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

Adams, J. L. (1974). Conceptual blockbusting. Stanford Alumni Association.Google Scholar
Auernhammer, J., & Hall, H. (2014). Organizational culture in knowledge creation, creativity and innovation: Towards the Freiraum model. Journal of Information Science, 40(2), 154-166.10.1177/0165551513508356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baltrusaitis, T., Zadeh, A., Lim, Y. C., & Morency, L. P. (2018, May). Openface 2.0: Facial behavior analysis toolkit. In 2018 13th IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face & Gesture Recognition (FG 2018) (pp. 59-66). IEEE.10.1109/FG.2018.00019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chikersal, P., Tomprou, M., Kim, Y. J., Woolley, A. W., & Dabbish, L. (2017, February). Deep structures of collaboration: physiological correlates of collective intelligence and group satisfaction. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (pp. 873-888).Google Scholar
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1978). Manual for the facial action coding system. Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Eris, Ö. (2003). Asking generative design questions: a fundamental cognitive mechanism in design thinking. In DS 31: Proceedings of ICED 03, the 14th International Conference on Engineering Design, Stockholm (pp. 587-588).Google Scholar
Eris, O., Martelaro, N., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2014). A comparative analysis of multimodal communication during design sketching in co-located and distributed environments. Design Studies, 35(6), 559-592.10.1016/j.destud.2014.04.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454. https://doi.org/https://doi-org.stanford.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/h0063487CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hinds, P. J., & Bailey, D. E. (2003). Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organization science, 14(6), 615-632.10.1287/orsc.14.6.615.24872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishikawa, K. (1968). Guide to quality control (Japanese): Gemba no QC shuho.Google Scholar
Jung, M. F. (2011). Engineering team performance and emotion: Affective interaction dynamics as indicators of design team performance. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Kumar, V. (2012). 101 design methods: A structured approach for driving innovation in your organization. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of social issues, 2(4), 34-46.10.1111/j.1540-4560.1946.tb02295.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liker, J.K., 2004. Toyota way: 14 management principles from the world's greatest manufacturer. McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
Markman, A. (2020), How to Brainstorm - Remotely. Harvard Business Review.Google Scholar
McKim, R. H. (1980). Experiences in visual thinking. Brooks/Cole Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding media: The extensions of man. MIT press.Google Scholar
Ohno, T. (1988). Toyota production system: beyond large-scale production. crc Press.Google Scholar
Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination. New York: Charles Schibner's SonGoogle Scholar
Sas, C., & Zhang, C. (2010). Investigating emotions in creative design.10.1145/1858171.1858241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sirkin, D. M. (2011). Design at a Distance: Tangible Telepresence Using Gesture and Robotics. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Sutton, R. I., & Hargadon, A. (1996). Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative science quarterly, 685-718.10.2307/2393872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, J. C., & Leifer, L. J. (1988, January). A framework for understanding the workspace activity of design teams. In Proceedings of the 1988 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work (pp. 244-249).Google Scholar
Zwicky, F. (1969). Discovery, invention, research through the morphological approach. The Mamillan CompanyGoogle Scholar