Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prototyping Dynamics: Sharing Multiple Designs Improves Exploration, Group Rapport, and Results

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Design Thinking Research

Part of the book series: Understanding Innovation ((UNDINNO))

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Arkes HR, Blumer C (1985) The psychology of sunk cost. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 35(1):124–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aron A, Aron EN, Smollan D (1992) Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. J Pers Soc Psychol 63(4):596–612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aronson E, Bridgeman D, Geffner R (1978) Interdependent interactions and prosocial behavior. J Res Dev Educ 12(1):16–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball LJ, Ormerod TC (1995) Structured and opportunistic processing in design: a critical discussion. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 43(1):131–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bao P, Gerber E, Gergle D, Hoffman D (2010) Momentum: getting and staying on topic during a brainstorm. In: Proceedings of conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, New York, pp 1233–1236

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-David I, Graham JR, Harvey CR (2007) Managerial overconfidence and corporate policies. National Bureau of Economic Research working paper series no. 13711

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandt J, Dontcheva M, Weskamp M, Klemmer SR (2010) Example-centric programming: integrating web search into the development environment. In: Proceedings of conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, New York, pp 513–522

    Google Scholar 

  • Brereton M, Cannon M, Mabogunje A, Leifer L, Brereton M, Cannon M, Mabogunje A, Leifer L (1996) Collaboration in design teams: how social interaction shapes the product. In: Analyzing design activity. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Buxton B (2007) Sketching user experiences: getting the design right and the right design. Morgan Kaufmann, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross N (2) Expertise in design: an overview. Des Stud 25(5):427–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curhan JR, Elfenbein HA, Xu H (2006) What do people value when they negotiate? Mapping the domain of subjective value in negotiation. J Pers Soc Psychol 91(3):493–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dannels DP, Martin KN (2008) Critiquing critiques: a genre analysis of feedback across novice to expert design studios. J Bus Tech Commun 22(2):135–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidoff S, Lee MK, Dey AK, Zimmerman J (2007) Rapidly exploring application design through speed dating. In: Proceedings of conference on ubiquitous computing, Innsbruck

    Google Scholar 

  • Diehl M, Stroebe W (1987) Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: toward the solution of a riddle. J Pers Soc Psychol 53(3):497–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dow SP, Heddleston K, Klemmer SR (2009) The efficacy of prototyping under time constraints. In: Proceedings of ACM conference on creativity and cognition, ACM, New York, pp 165–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Dow S, Glassco A, Kass J, Schwarz M, Schwartz DL, Klemmer SR (2010) Parallel prototyping leads to better design results, more divergence, and increased self-efficacy. Trans Comput-Hum Int, Article 18, 17(4):24

    Google Scholar 

  • Dweck C (2007) Mindset: the new psychology of success. Ballantine Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson KA, Smith J (1991) Toward a general theory of expertise: prospects and limits. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Fauconnier G, Turner M (2003) The way we think: conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Felps W, Mitchell T, Byington E (2006) How, when, and why bad apples spoil the barrel: negative group members and dysfunctional groups. Res Organ Behav 27:175–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finke RA, Ward TB, Smith SM (1996) Creative cognition: theory, research, and applications. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaver WW, Beaver J, Benford S (2003) Ambiguity as a resource for design. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, New York, pp 233–240

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerber E (2010) Prototyping practice in context: the psychological experience in a high tech firm. J Des Stud

    Google Scholar 

  • Hampton JA (1987) Inheritance of attributes in natural concept conjunctions. Mem Cognit 15(1):55–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann B, Yu L, Allison A, Yang Y, Klemmer SR (2008) Design as exploration: creating interface alternatives through parallel authoring and runtime tuning. In: Proceedings of the conference on user interface software and technology, ACM, New York, pp 91–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzog SM, Hertwig R (2009) The wisdom of many in one mind. Psychol Sci 20(2):231–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland F, Hyland K (2001) Sugaring the pill: praise and criticism in written feedback. J Second Lang Writ 10(3):185–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar SS, Lepper MR (2000) When choice is demotivating: can one desire too much of a good thing? J Pers Soc Psychol 79(6):995–1006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janis IL (1982) Groupthink: psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Wadsworth, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansson D, Smith S (1991) Design fixation. Des Stud 12(1):3–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kershaw TC, Ohlsson S (2) Multiple causes of difficulty in insight: the case of the nine-dot problem. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 30(1):3–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohavi R, Longbotham R (2007) Online experiments: lessons learned. Computer 40:103–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosara R (2007) Visualization criticism – the missing link between information visualization and art. In: Proceedings of the conference on information visualization. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, pp 631–636

    Google Scholar 

  • Larrick RP (2009) Broaden the decision frame to make effective decisions. In: Locke E (ed) Handbook of principles of organizational behavior. Wiley, Chichester, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee B, Srivastava S, Kumar R, Brafman R, Klemmer SR (2010) Designing with interactive example galleries. In: Proceedings of the conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, New York, pp 2257–2266

    Google Scholar 

  • Leifer L (2010) Dancing with ambiguity: design thinking in theory and practice. http://hci.stanford.edu/courses/cs547/speaker.php?date=2010-04-09

  • Mark G, Gonzalez VM, Harris J (2005) No task left behind?: examining the nature of fragmented work. In: Proceedings of the conference on Human factors in computing systems, Portland, pp 321–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh RL, Landau JD, Hicks JL (1996) How examples may (and may not) constrain creativity. Mem Cognit 24(5):669–680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moran TP, Carroll JM (1996) Design rationale: concepts, techniques, and use. CRC Press, Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson RS (1998) Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev Gen Psychol 2:175–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen J, Faber JM (1996) Improving system usability through parallel design. Computer 29(2):29–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranganath R, Jurafsky D, McFarland D (2009) It’s not you, it’s me: detecting flirting and its misperception in speed-dates. In: Proceedings of conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 334–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Schon DA (1995) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Ashgate, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrage M (1999) Serious play: how the world’s best companies simulate to innovate. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz DL (1995) The emergence of abstract representations in Dyad problem solving. J Learn Sci 4(3):321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz B (2) The paradox of choice: why more is less. Ecco, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith S (1993) Constraining effects of examples in a creative generation task. Mem Cognit 21:837–845

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stroebe W, Diehl M (1994) Why groups are less effective than their members: on productivity losses in idea-generating groups. Eur Rev Soc Psychol 5:271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutton R, Hargadon A (1996) Brainstorming groups in context: effectiveness in a product design firm. Adm Sci Q 41:685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor D, Berry P, Block C (1958) Does group participation when using brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking? Adm Sci Q 3(1):23–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomke S, Nimgade A (2000) IDEO product development. Harvard Business School Case, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson L, Gentner D, Loewenstein J (2000) Avoiding missed opportunities in managerial life: analogical training more powerful than individual case training. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 82(1):60–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tohidi M, Buxton W, Baecker R, Sellen A (2006) Getting the right design and the design right. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, New York, pp 1243–1252

    Google Scholar 

  • Warr A, O’Neill E (2005) Understanding design as a social creative process. In: Proceedings of the conference on creativity & cognition, ACM, New York, pp 118–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Wisniewski E, Gentner D (1991) On the combinatorial semantics of noun pairs: {minor} and major adjustments to meaning. In: Understanding word and sentence. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 241–284

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zwicky F (1969) Discovery, invention, research through the morphological approach. MacMillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Human-Computer Interaction Group, Stanford University, Gates Computer Science Building, 353 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA

    Steven P. Dow, Julie Fortuna, Dan Schwartz, Daniel L. Schwartz & Scott R. Klemmer

  2. Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Beth Altringer

Authors
  1. Steven P. Dow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julie Fortuna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dan Schwartz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Beth Altringer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Daniel L. Schwartz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Scott R. Klemmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Steven P. Dow or Beth Altringer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Hasso-Plattner-Institut, Prof.-Dr.-Helmert-Str. 2-3, Potsdam, 14482, Germany

    Hasso Plattner

  2. Hasso-Plattner-Institut, Prof.-Dr.-Helmert-Str. 2-3, Potsdam, 14482, Germany

    Christoph Meinel

  3. , Stanford Center for Design Research, Stanford University, Panama Mall 424, Stanford, 94305-2232, California, USA

    Larry Leifer

Appendices

Appendix A: Graphic Design Assessment

Instructions: For each of the statements below, indicate (True or False) whether or not the statement is a rule of graphic design

1

Mix serif and sans serif fonts in order to give variety to the ad

F

2

To help balance the ad, leave slightly more space at the top relative to the bottom of the ad

 

3

Create a visual separation between the text and the background

T

4

Angle the text in order to contrast different parts of the ad

F

5

Keep all elements in the ad aligned to one side

F

6

Create multiple visual focal points in order to attract attention to the ad as a whole

F

7

Use borders or white around text and images to help frame the content

T

8

You may use repetition to create a consistent and balanced look

T

9

You may break alignment to draw the viewer’s attention to important elements in the ad

T

10

Draw the viewer’s attention to important elements by contrasting scale

T

Appendix B: Advertising Design Brief

2.1 Assignment

You have been hired to design a graphic advertisement for FACEAIDS.org. You will learn to use a new graphic design tool, design provisional ads, and create a final ad to be posted through the Google ad network.

2.2 Goals

Keep in mind the following goals as you create your ads:

  1. (a)

    Increase traffic to the FaceAIDS website: http://faceaids.org/

  2. (b)

    Reach out to the target audience: students interested in improving global healthcare equality and making a difference in the AIDS epidemic in Africa.

  3. (c)

    Impress the clients from FaceAIDS, who will rate your ads. The client wants an ad that fits their overall aesthetic and theme (see below).

  4. (d)

    Create ads with effective graphic design. Ad professionals will rate your ads.

2.3 What is FaceAIDS?

FaceAIDS is a nonprofit organization dedicated to mobilizing and inspiring students to fight AIDS in Africa. FaceAIDS aims to build a broad-based movement of students seeking to increase global health equality. The organization raises awareness and funds, with the goal of increasing global health equality starting with the AIDS epidemic in Africa.

2.4 Theme and Aesthetic for the FaceAids Ad

FaceAIDS would like an advertisement that embodies the theme and general aesthetic of the organization. In particular, they are looking to encourage high school and college students interested in getting involved in service or social justice work to start FaceAIDS chapters on their campuses, as a leadership development opportunity and a way to join a vibrant, impactful community of like-minded, driven peers. In general they are looking for an ad that is tasteful, creative, professional, visually appealing, and conveys a clear message about the organization.

2.5 Rules/Requirements

  • You may download and use graphics & images as you see fit.

  • You may not use another company’s logo, copyrighted images, profanity, obscenity or nudity. Unacceptable ads will be rejected by the research team.

Do not include the magazine’s URL on the ad. Clicking the ad will direct the user to the site.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dow, S.P., Fortuna, J., Schwartz, D., Altringer, B., Schwartz, D.L., Klemmer, S.R. (2012). Prototyping Dynamics: Sharing Multiple Designs Improves Exploration, Group Rapport, and Results. In: Plattner, H., Meinel, C., Leifer, L. (eds) Design Thinking Research. Understanding Innovation. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31991-4_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation