4.5 Article

A Study of Design Fixation, Its Mitigation and Perception in Engineering Design Faculty

期刊

JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN
卷 132, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

ASME-AMER SOC MECHANICAL ENG
DOI: 10.1115/1.4001110

关键词

cognitive systems; design engineering; engineering education

资金

  1. NSF [CMMI0740529, SBE0738058, BCS0717957]
  2. University of Texas at Austin College of Engineering
  3. Cullen Trust
  4. Directorate For Engineering
  5. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn [0855293] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The bridge between engineering design and cognitive science research is critical to understand the effectiveness of design methods as implemented by human designers. The study reported in this paper evaluates the effects of design fixation in a group of engineering design faculty, and also provides evidence for approaches to overcome design fixation. Three conditions are compared, a control, a fixation group whom were provided with an example solution, and a defixation group whom were also given materials to mitigate their design fixation. Measures include indicators of design fixation and participant perceptions. The study demonstrates that the engineering design faculty show statistically significant evidence of design fixation, but only partially perceive its effects. This study also indicates that design fixation can be mitigated. The group of participants in this study, due to their background in engineering design research and experience with student design teams, was expected to have more accurate perceptions or awareness of design fixation than the typical participant. Understanding the incongruities between participant perceptions and quantitative design outcomes are particularly of interest to researchers of design methods. For this study, clear evidence exists that designers, even those that study and teach design on a regular basis, do not know when they are being influenced or fixated by misleading or poor information.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据