Tonetto, L M; Brust-Renck, P G; Ruecker, S; Fogliatto, F S and Pacheco, D A D J (2021) Differences in thinking styles across professionals with different academic backgrounds when developing a product. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 17(1-2), pp. 3-16. ISSN 1745-2007
Abstract
In some projects, professionals face problems in designing a product that force them to deal with uncertainties in a creative way; in others, they follow structured guidelines and rely on preexisting knowledge. In this paper, we map thinking styles (conditional, creative, exploring, independent, inquiring) used by professionals with different academic backgrounds (architects, engineers, and designers), and relate these styles to rationality, intuition, and thinking disposition. Understanding the strengths of each type of professional training is crucial to planning and managing teams that suit designs' needs. Several professionals (n = 141) participated in a survey comprised of the Concept Design–Thinking Style Inventory, the Rational Experiential Inventory, and the Actively Open-Minded Thinking Scale. Results showed that all professionals have had their highest strength of thoughts associated with exploring new or alternative options and displayed significantly higher scores toward rationally-oriented decisions and cognitive flexibility with regards to thinking disposition. The implications of the prevalence of the different modes of thoughts for the development of new products are discussed in light of assumptions about (ir)rational human behaviour and professional stereotypes.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | conceptual design; decision-making style; product design; thinking disposition; thinking styles |
| Index terms: | rationality, product design, inventory, stereotype, designer, survey, human behaviour, decision-making style, engineer, face, concept design, architect, intuition, option, conceptual design |
| Subjects: | design process, inventory management, decision-making and reasoning, design practice, sociology, decision analysis, cognitive psychology, health behaviours and lifestyles, profession, data collection methods, innovation and technology management, psychology |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Design Practice, Urban Studies, Supply Chain Management, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here