A Design Thinking Rationality Framework: Framing and Solving Design Problems in Early Concept Generation

REFERENCES

• Ahmed, S., Wallace, K. M., & Blessing, L. T. M. (2003). Understanding the differences between how novice and experienced designers approach design tasks. Research in Engineering Design, 14, 1–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the synthesis of form. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Alhakami, A. S., & Slovic, P. (1994). A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis, 14, 1085–1096.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Almendra, R., & Christiaans, H. (2009). Decision making in the conceptual design phases: A comparative study. Journal of Design Research, 8, 1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, J. R., & Betz, J. (2001). A hybrid model of categorization. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 629–647.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atwood, M. E., McCain, K. W., & Williams, J. C. (2002). How does the design community think about design. Proceedings of the DIS 2002 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417–423.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baddeley, A. D., Hitch, G. J., & Allen, R. J. (2009). Working memory and binding in sentence recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 438–456.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakhtin, M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ball, L. J., & Ormerod, T. C. (1995). Structured and opportunistic processing in design: A critical discussion. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 43, 131–151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ball, L. J., Ormerod, T. C., & Morley, N. J. (2004). Spontaneous analogising in engineering design: A comparative analysis of experts and novices. Design Studies, 25, 495–508.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barthes, R. (1975). The pleasure of the text. New York, NY: Hill & Wang.
   Google Scholar
• Bartneck, C. (2007). Design methodology is not design science. Proceedings of the CHI 2007 Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Bassok, M. (2003). Analogical transfer in problem solving. In J. E. Davidson & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of problem solving (pp. 343–367). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bilda, Z., & Gero, J. S. (2007). The impact of working memory limitations on the design process during conceptualization. Design Studies, 28, 343–367.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bjorklund, T. A. (2013). Initial mental representations of design problems: Differences between experts and novices. Design Studies, 34, 135–160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouchard, C., Mantelet, F., Aoussat, A., Solves, C., Gonzalez, J., Pearce, K., Coleman, S. (2009). A European emotional investigation in the field of shoe design. International Journal of Product Development, 7, 3–27.
   Google Scholar
• Broadbent, G. (1973). Design in architecture: Architecture and the human sciences. London, UK: Wiley and Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86, 84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York, NY: Harper Business.
   Google Scholar
• Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G., & Weber, M. (1989). The curse of knowledge in economic settings: An experimental analysis. The Journal of Political Economy, 97, 1232–1254.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cardoso, C., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2011). Fixation or inspiration: Creative problem solving in design. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 45, 77–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carroll, J. M. (2003). HCI models, theories and frameworks. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Cathcart, R., & Gumpert, G. (1986). I am a camera: The mediated self. Communications Quarterly, 34, 89–102.
   Google Scholar
• Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coley, F., Houseman, O., & Roy, R. (2007). An introduction to capturing and understanding the cognitive behaviour of design engineers. Journal of Engineering Design, 18, 311–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Studies, 17(3), 49–55.
   Google Scholar
• Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25, 427–442.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Oxford, UK: Berg.
   Google Scholar
• Dahl, D. W., & Moreau, P. (2002). The influence and value of analogical thinking during new product ideation. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 47–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Design Council. (2005). The ‘double diamond’ design process model. Retrieved from http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/about-design/how-designers-work/the-design-process/
   Google Scholar
• Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies, 32, 521–532.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eastman, C. (2001). New directions in design cognition: Studies of representation and recall (pp. 147–198). %Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Eastman, C. M., McCracken, W. M., & Newstetter, W. C. (Eds.). (2001). Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 79–103). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Ellmann, R. (1969). The artist as critic: Critical writings of Oscar Wilde. Chicago: The University Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Erickson, M. A., & Kruschke, J. K. (1998). Rules and exemplars in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 107–140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (Eds.). (1991). Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fallman, D. (2003). Design-oriented human-computer interaction. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems. New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Fallman, D. (2007). Why research-oriented design isn't design-oriented research: On the tensions between design and research in an implicit design discipline. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 20, 193–200.
   Google Scholar
• Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frederick, W. C. (1998). Creatures, corporations, communities, chaos, complexity: A naturological view of the corporate social role. Business & Society, 37, 358–389.
   Google Scholar
• Gentner, D., Rattermann, M. J., & Forbus, K. D. (1993). The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating retrievability from inferential soundness. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 524–575.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gero, J. S. (2006). Understanding situated design computing and constructive memory: Newton, Mach, Einstein and quantum mechanics. In Intelligent computing in engineering and architecture (pp. 285–297). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Goldschmidt, G. (1994). On visual design thinking: The vis kids of architecture. Design Studies, 15, 158–174.
   Google Scholar
• Guindon, R. (1990). Designing the design process: Exploiting opportunistic thoughts. Human–Computer Interaction, 5, 305–344.
   Google Scholar
• Hallihan, G. M., Cheong, H., & Shu, L. H. (2012). Confirmation and cognitive bias in design cognition. Proceedings of the ASME 2012 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. New York: ASME.
   Google Scholar
• Holyoak, K. J., & Nisbett, R. E. (1988). Introduction. In R. J. Sternberg & E. E. Smith (Eds.), The psychology of human thought (pp. 50–91). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jansson, D. G., & Smith, S. M. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies, 12, 3–11.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, J. C. (1970/1992). Design methods: Seeds of human futures. London, UK: Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (1994). New challenges to the rationality assumption. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, pp. 18–36.
   Google Scholar
• Kalogerakis, K., Lüthje, C., & Herstatt, C. (2010). Developing innovations based on analogies: experience from design and engineering consultants. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27, 418–436.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kavakli, M., & Gero, J. S. (2001). Sketching as mental imagery processing. Design Studies, 22, 347–364.
   Google Scholar
• Kavakli, M., & Gero, J. S. (2002). The structure of concurrent cognitive actions: A case study on novice and expert designers, Design Studies, 23, 25–40.
   Google Scholar
• Kerne, A., Smith, S. M., Koh, E., Choi, H., & Graeber, R. (2008). An experimental method for measuring the emergence of new ideas in information discovery. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 24, 460–477.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, J. (2011). Modeling cognitive and affective processes of designers in the early stages of design: Mental categorization of information processing (Unpublished doctoral thesis, in French). Paris, France: Arts et Métiers ParisTech.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, J., Bouchard, C., & Ryu, H. (2012). Emotion finds a way to users from designers: Assessing product images to convey designer's emotion. Journal of Design Research, 10, 307–323.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, J., Ryu, H., & Kim, H. A. (2013). To be biased or not to be: Choosing between design fixation and design intentionality. Proceedings of the CHI 2013 Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Lawson, B. (1997). How designers think: The design process demystified (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Architectural Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lawson, B. (2004). Schemata, gambits and precedent: Some factors in design expertise. Design Studies, 25, 443–457.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawson, B. (2005). How designers think: The design process demystified. Boston, MA: Architectural Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. New York, NY: Architectural Press.
   Google Scholar
• Löwgren, J., & Stolterman, E. (2004). Thoughtful interaction design: A design perspective on information technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Markman, K. D., Klein, W. M., & Suhr, J. A. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of imagination and mental simulation. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, R. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Mougenot, C., Bouchard, C., Aoussat, A., & Westerman, S. (2008). Inspiration, images and design: An investigation of designers' information gathering strategies. Journal of Design Research, 7, 331–351.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, H., & Stolterman, E. (2003). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Neustaedter, C., & Sengers, P. (2012). Autobiographical design in HCI research: Designing and learning through use-it-yourself. Proceedings of the DIS 2012 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Pasman, G. (2003). Designing with precedents (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Delft University of Technology, l.
   Google Scholar
• Pham, M. T. (1998). Representativeness, relevance, and the use of feelings in decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 144–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pratkanis, A. R. (1989). The cognitive representation of attitudes. Attitude Structure and Function, 71–98.
   Google Scholar
• Premack, D. G., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 515–526.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1974). Wicked problems. Man-made Futures, pp. 272–280.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, C. R. (1989). The Carl Rogersreader (H. Kirschenbaum & V. L. Land, Eds.). New York, NY: Houghton-Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, Y. (2004). New theoretical approaches for human–computer interaction. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 38, 87–143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Schwarz, N. (2010). Meaning in context: Metacognitive experiences. In B. Mesquita, L. F. Barrett, & E. R. Smith (Eds.), The mind in context (pp. 105–125). New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., Aharon-Peretz, J., & Perry, D. (2009). Two systems for empathy: A double dissociation between emotional and cognitive empathy in inferior frontal gyrus versus ventromedial prefrontal lesions. Brain, 132, 617–627.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silverman, D. (1998). Harvey sacks: Social science and conversation analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stolterman, E. (2001). The design of information systems: Parti, formats and sketching. Information Systems Journal, 9, 3–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stolterman, E. (2008). The nature of design practice and implications for interaction design research. International Journal of Design, 2, 55–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suwa, M., Purcell, T., & Gero, J. S. (1998). Macroscopic analysis of design processes based on a scheme for coding designers' cognitive actions. Design Studies, 19, 455–483.
   Google Scholar
• Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (1997). What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Design Studies, 18, 385–403.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, B. C., & Lindlof, T. R. (Eds.). (2002). Qualitative communication research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Tomico, O., Winthagen, V. O., & van Hesit, M. M. G. (2012). Designing for, with or within: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person points of view on designing for system. Proceedings of the Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Trotto, A., Hummels, C., & Restrepo, M. C. (2011). Towards design-driven innovation: designing for points of view, using intuition through skills. Proceedings of the Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces Conference. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visser, W. (1990). More or less following a plan during design: Opportunistic deviations in specification. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 33, 247–278.
   Google Scholar
• Visser W. (2006). Designing as construction of representations: A dynamic viewpoint in cognitive design research. Human–Computer Interaction, 21, 103–152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visser, W. (2009). Design: One, but in different forms. Design Studies, 30, 187–223.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, J. J. (2004). Bertolt Brecht's dramatic theory. Rochester, NY: Camden House.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, P. (1975). Consumer choice strategies: Simplifying vs. optimizing. Journal of Marketing Research 12, 60–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright, P., & McCarthy, J. (2008). Empathy and experience in HCI. Proceedings of the CHI 2008 Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Yilmaz, S., & Seifert, C.M. (2011). Creativity through design heuristics: A case study of expert product design. Design Studies, 32, 384–415.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, J., Stolterman, E., & Forlizzi, J. (2010). An analysis and critique of research through design: Towards a formalization of a research approach. Proceedings of the DIS 2010 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar