ABSTRACT
Prototypes ground group communication and facilitate decision making. However, overly investing in a single design idea can lead to fixation and impede the collaborative process. Does sharing multiple designs improve collaboration? In a study, participants created advertisements individually and then met with a partner. In the Share Multiple condition, participants designed and shared three ads. In the Share Best condition, participants designed three ads and selected one to share. In the Share One condition, participants designed and shared one ad. Sharing multiple designs improved outcome, exploration, sharing, and group rapport. These participants integrated more of their partner's ideas into their own subsequent designs, explored a more divergent set of ideas, and provided more productive critiques of their partner's designs. Furthermore, their ads were rated more highly and garnered a higher click-through rate when hosted online.
- Arkes, H. R. and Blumer, C. The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 35, 1 (1985), 124--140.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Aron, A., Aron, E. N., and Smollan, D. Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the Structure of Interpersonal Closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63, 4 (1992), 596--612.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Aronson, E., Bridgeman, D., and Geffner, R. Interdependent Interactions and Prosocial Behavior. Journal of Research and Development in Education 12, 1 (1978), 16--27.Google Scholar
- Ball, L. J. and Ormerod, T. C. Structured and opportunistic processing in design: a critical discussion. International Journal Human-Computer Studies 43, 1 (1995), 131--151. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bao, P., Gerber, E., Gergle, D., and Hoffman, D. Momentum: getting and staying on topic during a brainstorm. Proc of conf on Human factors in computing systems, ACM (2010), 1233--1236. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ben-David, I., Graham, J. R., and Harvey, C. R. Managerial Overconfidence and Corporate Policies. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series No. 13711, (2007).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Brandt, J., Dontcheva, M., Weskamp, M., and Klemmer, S. R. Example-centric programming: integrating web search into the development environment. Proc of conf on Human factors in computing systems, ACM (2010), 513--522. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Brereton, M., Cannon, M., Mabogunje, A., and Leifer, L. Collaboration in Design Teams: How Social Interaction Shapes the Product. In Analyzing Design Activity. Wiley, 1996.Google Scholar
- Buxton, B. Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design. Morgan Kaufmann, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cross, N. Expertise in design: an overview. Design Studies 25, 5 (2004), 427--441.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Curhan, J. R., Elfenbein, H. A., and Xu, H. What Do People Value When They Negotiate? Mapping the Domain of Subjective Value in Negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91, 3 (2006), 493--512.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dannels, D. P. and Martin, K. N. Critiquing Critiques: A Genre Analysis of Feedback Across Novice to Expert Design Studios. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 22, 2 (2008), 135--159.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Davidoff, S., Lee, M. K., Dey, A. K., and Zimmerman, J. Rapidly Exploring Application Design Through Speed Dating. Proc. of Conf on Ubiquitous Computing, (2007). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Diehl, M. and Stroebe, W. Productivity Loss In Brainstorming Groups: Toward the Solution of a Riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53, 3 (1987), 497--509.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dow, S. P., Heddleston, K., and Klemmer, S. R. The Efficacy of Prototyping Under Time Constraints. Proceeding of ACM Conf. on Creativity and Cognition, ACM (2009), 165--174. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dow, S., Glassco, A., Kass, J., Schwarz, M., Schwartz, D. L., and Klemmer, S. R. Parallel Prototyping Leads to Better Design Results, More Divergence, and Increased Self-Efficacy. Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 4, (2010). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dweck, C. Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Ballantine Books, 2007.Google Scholar
- Ericsson, K. A. and Smith, J. Toward a General Theory of Expertise: Prospects and Limits. Cambridge University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
- Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Hidden Complexities. Basic Books, 2003.Google Scholar
- Felps, W., Mitchell, T., and Byington, E. How, When, and Why Bad Apples Spoil the Barrel: Negative Group Members and Dysfunctional Groups. Research in Organizational Behavior 27, (2006), 175--222.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., and Smith, S. M. Creative Cognition: Theory, Research, and Applications. The MIT Press, 1996.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gaver, W. W., Beaver, J., and Benford, S. Ambiguity as a resource for design. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, ACM (2003), 233--240. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gerber, E. Prototyping Practice in Context: The Psychological Experience in a High Tech Firm. Journal of Design Studies, (2010).Google Scholar
- Hampton, J. A. Inheritance of attributes in natural concept conjunctions. Memory & Cognition 15, 1 (1987), 55--71.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hartmann, B., Yu, L., Allison, A., Yang, Y., and Klemmer, S. R. Design as exploration: creating interface alternatives through parallel authoring and runtime tuning. Proc of the conf on User interface software and technology, ACM (2008), 91--100. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Herzog, S. M. and Hertwig, R. The Wisdom of Many in One Mind. Psychological Science 20, 2 (2009), 231--237.Google Scholar
- Hyland, F. and Hyland, K. Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 10, 3 (2001), 185--212.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Iyengar, S. S. and Lepper, M. R. When choice is demotivating: can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79, 6 (2000), 995--1006.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Janis, I. L. Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Wadsworth Publishing, 1982.Google Scholar
- Jansson, D. and Smith, S. Design Fixation. Design Studies 12, 1 (1991), 3--11.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kershaw, T. C. and Ohlsson, S. Multiple causes of difficulty in insight: the case of the nine-dot problem. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30, 1 (2004), 3--13.Google Scholar
- Kohavi, R. and Longbotham, R. Online Experiments: Lessons Learned. Computer 40, 2007, 103--105. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kosara, R. Visualization Criticism - The Missing Link Between Information Visualization and Art. Proc of the Conf on Information Visualization, IEEE Computer Society (2007), 631--636. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Larrick, R. P. Broaden the decision frame to make effective decisions. In Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior. Wiley and Sons, 2009.Google Scholar
- Lee, B., Srivastava, S., Kumar, R., Brafman, R., and Klemmer, S. R. Designing with interactive example galleries. Proc of the conf on Human factors in computing systems, ACM (2010), 2257--2266. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Leifer, L. Dancing with Ambiguity: design thinking in theory and practice. 2010.Google Scholar
- Mark, G., Gonzalez, V. M., and Harris, J. No task left behind?: examining the nature of fragmented work. Proc of the conf on Human factors in computing systems, (2005), 321--330. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Marsh, R. L., Landau, J. D., and Hicks, J. L. How examples may (and may not) constrain creativity. Memory & Cognition 24, 5 (1996), 669--680.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Moran, T. P. and Carroll, J. M. Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques, and Use. CRC Press, 1996. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nickerson, R. S. Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. Review of General Psychology 2, (1998), 175--220.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nielsen, J. and Faber, J. M. Improving System Usability Through Parallel Design. Computer 29, 2 (1996), 29--35. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ranganath, R., Jurafsky, D., and McFarland, D. It's not you, it's me: detecting flirting and its misperception in speed-dates. Proc of Conf on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Association for Computational Linguistics (2009), 334--342. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Smith. Constraining effects of examples in a creative generation task. Memory & Cognition 21, (1993), 837--845.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Schon, D. A. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Ashgate Publishing, 1995.Google Scholar
- Schrage, M. Serious Play: How the World's Best Companies Simulate to Innovate. Harvard Business School Press, 1999.Google Scholar
- Schwartz, B. The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. Ecco, 2004.Google Scholar
- Schwartz, D. L. The Emergence of Abstract Representations in Dyad Problem Solving. Journal of the Learning Sciences 4, 3 (1995), 321.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Stroebe, W. and Diehl, M. Why Groups are less Effective than their Members: On Productivity Losses in Idea-generating Groups. European Review of Social Psychology 5, (1994), 271.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sutton, R. and Hargadon, A. Brainstorming groups in context: effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, (1996).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Taylor, D., Berry, P., and Block, C. Does Group Participation When Using Brainstorming Facilitate or Inhibit Creative Thinking? Administrative Science Quarterly 3, 1 (1958), 23--47.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Thomke, S. and Nimgade, A. IDEO Product Development. Harvard Business School Case, (2000).Google Scholar
- Thompson, L., Gentner, D., and Loewenstein, J. Avoiding Missed Opportunities in Managerial Life: Analogical Training More Powerful Than Individual Case Training. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 82, 1 (2000), 60--75.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tohidi, M., Buxton, W., Baecker, R., and Sellen, A. Getting the right design and the design right. Proceedings of the SIG-CHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems, ACM (2006), 1243--1252. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Warr, A. and O'Neill, E. Understanding design as a social creative process. Proc of the conf on Creativity & Cognition, ACM (2005), 118--127. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wisniewski, E. and Gentner, D. On the combinatorial semantics of noun pairs: {Minor} and major adjustments to meaning. In Understanding word and sentence. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1991, 241--284.Google Scholar
- Zwicky, F. Discovery, Invention, Research Through the Morphological Approach. MacMillan, 1969.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Prototyping dynamics: sharing multiple designs improves exploration, group rapport, and results
Recommendations
Prototyping: is it a more creative way for shaping ideas
MIDI '13: Proceedings of the International Conference on Multimedia, Interaction, Design and InnovationPrototyping is an important phase during development of innovative solutions. Iterative design process and testing prototypes with users may highly improve the final result. Design Thinking methodology developed in Silicon Valley is widely recognized ...
Alice: design of a Time-oriented Collaboration Service for Design Teams
EICS '18: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing SystemsThis paper describes the design and implementation of Alice, an online collaboration system that integrates several commercial cloud storage services and reconfigures team member's interactions into a time-oriented visualization. Designers use social ...
Showing is sharing: building shared understanding in human-centered design teams with Dazzle
DIS '12: Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems ConferenceHuman-centered design teams must integrate diverse individual perspectives into a shared understanding during conceptual design. The team's shared knowledge of their users becomes the basis for later design decisions. We conducted a formative study that ...
Comments