Research Proposal B06 Cognitive Conflicts 4269861

Amount of words: 2916

W H A T I S T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F C O N F L I C T S ( C O G N I T I V E , A F F E C T I V E A N D P R O CE S S C O N F L I C T S ) I N T H E D I F F E R E N T D E S I G N P H A S E S ?

JULIAN JAGTENBERG (4269861), YORICK DE BOER (4287304), DAVID MOONEY (4349466) AND DANIËL VAN DEN HAAK (4284429)

ABSTRACT

Is there a clear pattern in the presence of conflicts throughout the different design phases or is it completely random. Are the results for each and every person different? Assuming that there is a difference between the phases and the types of conflicts, what kind of strategies do teams use in situations of cognitive conflicts? This paper reports on a study analyzing how design teams cope with different conflicts throughout the design phases. Five teams consisting of five people were asked to do a small design task. They had to run through the design phases which are defined in (Roozenburg & Eekels, 1998). Afterwards they had to fill in a questionnaire which can be transformed into visual data, so a proper conclusion can be crafted. In conclusion we can state that the amount and type of conflicts in a group are different depending on the current type of design phase. Therefore the null hypothesis (H0) can be rejected. Whereas the cognitive conflict is dominant in the last two phases the first phases are normally distributed across the different conflicts. Therefore it can also be concluded that the further you approach in a design project the more important the group becomes and more conflicts may occur. So again, there is a difference going on and the H0 can be rejected.

KEYWORDS

Conflict, design phases, cognitive, affective, process, development, relationship, questionnaires, pilot, research and design, Petra Badke-Schaub, Industrial Design.

INTRODUCTION

It is safe to say that design is a very

complex activity. The design teams of today mostly consist of members that have different disciplines, goals, opinions and

skillsets. These differences between members, however, lead to conflicts between individuals or groups within the design team. Therefore we assume that in the typical design team of today, (Kumar, Reserach Methodology, 2011) conflicts are unavoidable. Current research only focuses on the types of conflict and design phases. But none of the researches focus on the development of conflicts throughout the different design phases. During the design process there are many moments where an individual or multiple members of the team have to make

2

© 2014 TU Delft Industrial Engineering Research and Design IO1080-13 Petra Badke-Schaub Group B06

decisions. A good example is choosing which concept should be developed during the evaluation-element of the design process. Of course this isn’t the only moment. Designing, especially in a team, constantly consists of making decisions. (Roozenburg & Eekels, 1998) Current research has shown that both conflict and trust are important factors which contribute to decision outcomes. (Parayitam & Dooley, 2006) Cognitive conflict and cognition-based trust are far more important than any other type of conflict such as affective conflicts, in decision making. The objective of this study is to examine in which phase during the design process, conflicts are the strongest, by doing this, plans can be developed to adapt to these phases in the best way possible. A good example for this may be leadership. (Ayoko & Callan, 2008) The research will be done via a design task. Five groups consisting of five people will do a small design task. While they’re doing the research they have to fill in a questionnaire.

Hypothesis: H0: The development of the conflicts is not different in every phase of the design process. Ha: The development of the conflicts is different in every phase of the design process. We assume that there are differences in the presence of types of conflicts because the task in every design phase is different from each other. So a group has to deal with different types of problems in every phase which makes conflicts occur.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

PHASES OF THE DESIGN PROCESS

The design process is a process we all do in our daily lives. Without even knowing it. (Cross, 2008) You could also see it as problem solving. And we do nothing else but that. Everything you undertake is the result of solved small or big problems.

In this case we focus on the design process for products. There are different ways of approaching a design process. Everyone handles tasks differently. Every person undergoes a different process with different emotions and ideas behind it. Although there is a general process or pattern we can recognize in almost every product design development process. Which consists of the following elements (William J. Rothwell, 2011) (Eekels & Roozenburg, 1998)

1. Analysis: In this part of the design process information is being gathered, analyzed and clustered. There has to be gathered as much relevant information as possible. Eventually only the useful information should be filtered.

2. Synthesis: This is the idea-generation and conceptualization period of the process. This part is essential for the rest of the project and determines the innovation/functionality levels.

3. Simulation: In this part several concepts should be developed. These are combinations of the ideas in the synthesis phase. These concepts meet the program of requirements. The concepts should be tested with prototypes, to check if the concept is valid.

4. Evaluation: Here one will test the performance and overall quality of the concepts. There several selection methods to describe and test the way your final concepts perform.

5. Decision: In this phase the designer compares the results of the final concepts with each other. There are 2 ways of doing this: nominal and ordinal method. (Eekels & Roozenburg, 1998) After this phase you’ve decided which one of your concepts is the best. And is the concept you will finalize for its eventual goal.

3


TYPES OF CONFLICT

(Petra Badka-Schaub, 2010)

- Affective: Conflicts that relate to differences regarding personal issues, negative emotions and unsatisfactory relationships among team members.

- Cognitive: Cognitive conflicts are defined as difference in perspective or judgment related to the task at hand; it pertains to predominantly different views or opinions during solution discussions.

- Process: Process conflicts are conflicts that, similar to cognitive conflicts, are linked to the task but involve issues related to the mode of accomplishing the task

RESEARCH APPROACH: EMPIRICAL STUDY

DESIGN TASK

Five design teams containing four group members will be asked to design a musical instrument for children with an age of 7-9. The client is Yamaha who wants children to get in touch with making music in a different way than with ordinary musical instruments, because these instruments are often hard to begin with if you never really made music. The assignment for the design groups is to design a good looking instrument for children, which it is easier on to make good sounding music than on a common instrument.

The main requirements of this instrument are:

Good sound without much music making knowledge

Price tag below 100 euro

Durable enough for children of the age-group

Should not look too much like a toy (still Yamaha)

All participants are industrial design students so they have knowledge of the basic design cycle. The gender mix of the groups will be random. The whole design cycle will be executed in two hours. The teams will be reminded to move to the next step, by the observers. Every step in the cycle has a specified time. Groups are not allowed to return to a previous step. The equipment every member of the group will get is paper, a laptop with internet, carton and strings. Afterwards the participants will fill in a questionnaire. (see appendix for questionnaire)

Time scheme of the full research:

Step of design cycle

Amount of time

Analysis 00:20 hours Synthesis 00:40 hours Simulation 00:30 hours Evaluation 00:20 hours Decision 00:10 hours

Before the full research design a pilot will be conducted. The differences between the full research and the pilot are that the pilot will be done with only five groups, the amount of time to do the whole design cycle was one hour. Because of the limited time the participants were given relevant information for the analysis so they would not have to search for it themselves.

Time scheme of the pilot research:

Step of design cycle

Amount of time

Analysis 00:10 hours Synthesis 00:20 hours Simulation 00:15 hours Evaluation 00:10 hours Decision 00:05 hours

MEASUREMENT METHOD

4


During our research, we are mainly interested in data from primary sources, hence our little experiment. However, if it is available, we can always back up our conclusion with secondary data from (for example) other studies. (Kumar, Research Methodology 4th ed, 1999)

Knowing that conflicts in a design team is a social and interactive phenomenon, we choose to use a questionnaire afterwards.

The experiment requires full attention from the participants and therefore we cannot participate in the design assignment. In other words, this experiment is a non-participant observation (the subjects are given an assignment) where we are observant.

During the experiment, the participants will record how many conflicts occur per group, per design phase. We choose to separate and note down all the three conflicts (cognitive, process and affective), for there may be a connection between them. The independent variables will be the different design phases and the dependent variables will be the amount of the types of conflict.

5


RESULTS

Three one-way within subjects ANOVA tests were conducted to compare the effect of each of the design phases on the level of cognitive, process and affective conflicts perceived by an individual (N=29). One test was performed for each type of conflict. If the ANOVA test indicates a significant time effect, we proceed to test each phase (per conflict) against each other, to determine where in the design cycle there is a significant change.

Cognitive conflicts

For the cognitive conflicts, the results of the ANOVA indicate a significant time effect, Wilks’ Lambda = .382, F(4, 25) = 10.113, p < 0.01, η2 = .618. Thus, there is significant evidence to reject the H0 hypothesis. (see Apendix, Multivariate Tests)

Follow up comparisons (see Apendix, Pairwise Comparisons) indicated there only is a significant pairwise difference between phase 1 and phase 2, p = .001. After that, the pairwise differences are not significant, p > .05. This means that from phase 2 – 5, we cannot reject the null hypothesis, which means there is no significant difference.

Affective conflicts

As for the affective conflicts, the ANOVA test also results in a significant time effect, Wilks’Lambda = 0.230, F(4, 25) = 20.965, p < 0.01, η2 = .770.

This time however, there is a significant change from phase 1 to 2 and phase 3 to 4 (p < .05).

Process conflicts

The last ANOVA test was conducted to compare the level of process conflicts during each phase. Again, there is a significant time effect, Wilks’ Lambda = 0.218, F(4, 25) = 22.280, p < 0.01, η2 = .782.

For this type of conflict, the H0 hypothesis can be rejected for phases 1 to 2 and 3 to 4 (p < .05).

Mean value of each conflict per phase

Cognitive conflicts Affective conflicts Process conflicts

Phase Mean Phase Mean Phase Mean 1 3,79 1 3,83 1 4,14 2* 5,52 2* 5,66 2* 5,55 3 5,86 3 5,24 3 5,31 4 5,03 4* 3,28 4* 3,52 5 5,07 5 3,14 5 2,86

* Indicates a significant change of the level of conflict in that phase compared to the previous one

6


FIGUUR 1 HEAT MAP, MEANS VS PHASES/CONFLICTS

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The design process consumes a lot of time, people and money. So far there has been a lot of research concerning conflicts in design teams. However, taking into account that we can clearly distinguish different kinds of phases (the amount and which type of phases, depending on the theory on how the process is divided) throughout the design process, researchers can only apply their theories on the design process as a whole. This study gives the researcher the opportunity to use their knowledge about conflicts in a more detailed manner. We have learned that, in the future, it is necessary to view the design process as a process consisting of multiple different phases instead of one big process when doing research on conflicts in a design team. As expected, each type of conflict is subject to variation when going through the process. Not only does this study provide strong evidence that the amount of each type of conflict changes during the process, it also gives insight into how this happens.

The research gives insights on how much of the three conflicts (cognitive, affective or process) occur in different phases of the basic design cycle and whether or not they are different in every phase. In the Heat-map (see figure 1) we have a clear visual indication whether a conflict is dominant in a particular phase or not. In the midsection there is clear ‘hot’ area. (see the different colors of red) Which means that in the Simulation and Synthesis phase is a lot of conflict going on, regarding all types of conflicts. Looking at the objective of this phase these results could be explained. Individual ideas need to be adjusted to group ideas, Which leads to conflicts. When people have their ideas thrown in the group, there are some personal feelings attached to it.

7


When in the decision/evaluation phase the idea becomes criticized a person can feel rejected. This makes the cognitive conflict occur much more. (Waxer & Morton, 2003) In the analysis phase the mean is around 4,00 all three conflicts happen with the same amount. Also compared to the amount of conflicts in the simulation and synthesis it is not much. This is explained by that this phase is more individual oriented, all information is welcome and there isn’t much to go wrong. All the ideas and things to come up with are welcome and used, no one can really be rejected or something in that matter. But when we look at the last two phases, there is something happening. There is a clear indication that the cognitive conflict occurs much more in these phases, Because of the large amount of decision making. Cognitive conflict and cognition-based trust are far more important than any other type of conflict such as affective conflicts, in decision making. (Parayitam & Dooley, 2006). In conclusion we can state that the amount and type of conflicts in a group are different depending on the current type of design phase. Therefore the H0 hypothesis can be rejected. Whereas the cognitive conflict is dominant in the last two phases the first phases are equally distributed across the different conflicts. Therefore we can also conclude that the further you approach in a design project the more important the group becomes and more conflicts may occur. So again, there is a difference going on and the H0 can be rejected.

So when you’re doing a design task or project it’s fairly important to keep in mind that in the final two stages cognitive conflicts occur which may decrease the performance of a group. Also in the mid stages (synthesis and simulation) there should be kept in mind that the three conflicts (cognitive, affective and process) are occurring, which may also cause a decrease in the level of effectiveness of workflow.

To get more in depth and find out everything about the influence of the presence of certain conflicts in a design process, another research has to be done. Together with the improvements we found out in this pilot.

WHAT WENT WRONG

When we did our research we found out that not everyone had a very good idea about what all the conflicts really meant. In most cases only after the research they really began to understand the meaning and values of knowing the conflicts. We chose a 7-point scale to indicate whether the conflict occurred everyone had their own interpretation, even though they were in the same design group this could have influenced the overall mean.

It was also hard to visualize the end results in a clear visual graph. In most cases it wouldn’t be clear whether a conflict occurred more or less. That’s why we chose the heat-map, which doesn’t give the precise outcomes but does give a clear visual feedback on our research question.

We chose this research question as it will prove to be very useful for design firms, enabling them to anticipate and control any future conflicts and/or problems throughout the design process. Companies will also understand when the most conflicts occur and understand what is needed to resolve conflicts in the design process

The results clearly show how and when these conflicts occur and provide valuable insight into what we can do to resolve them. As part of any further research based around these problems. The full research will require a more diverse group of designers who different levels have different levels of expertise. There will also be more groups of design teams studied as this will help us to obtain more information on the subject of conflict in design teams.

8


This research is important for future researchers as it gives valuable insights into how design teams interact throughout the

design process. This report will also be useful as a starting point for further research.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Each week we had to hand in a deliverable for the establishment of this paper. Our coah; Petra Badke-Schaub, introduced us into the world of conflicts. We didn’t have any financial support and everything was made possible by the work of volunteers.

NOTE

Initially five groups (29 participants) were invited to participate in the experiment, and all of them undertook the task and reached a solution.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amason, A. C. (1996). DISTINGUISHING THE EFFECTS OF FUNCTIONAL AND DYSFUNCTIONAL CONFLICT ON STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING: RESOLVING A PARADOX FOR TOP MANAGEMENT TEAMS . Mississipi: Academy of Management Journal.

Ayoko, O. B., & Callan, V. J. (2010). Teams' reactions to conflict and teams' task and social outcomes: The moderating role of transformational and emotional leadership. Elsevier.

Ayoko, O., & Callan, V. (2008). Teams' reactions to conflict and teams' task and social outcomes: The moderate role of transformational and emotional leadership. Elsevier.

Buijs, J. (2012). The Delft Innovation Method. Den Haag: Eleven International Publishing.

Cross, N. (2008). Engineering design methods : strategies for product design. Wiley: Chichester.

Eekels, N., & Roozenburg, J. (1998). Productontwerpen, structuur en methoden. Den Haag: Lemma BV.

Engelen, R. T. (2011). Team polarity and Creative Performance in Innovation Teams. Delft: ASDR .

Fernandez, A. A. (2009). Structured Methods of New Product Development. Porto: Research Gate.

Google. (2010). Google Scholar. Retrieved from Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.nl/

Kumar, R. (1999). Research Methodology 4th ed. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Kumar, R. (2011). Reserach Methodology. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Parayitam, S., & Dooley, R. (2006). The interplay between cognitive- and affective conflict and cognition- and affect-based trust in influencing decision outcomes. Journal of Business Research.

Parayitam, S., & Dooley, R. S. (2006). The interplay between cognitive- and affective conflict and cognition- and affect-based trust in influencing decision outcomes. Journal of Business Research.

Petra Badka-Schaub, G. G. (2010). How Does Cognitive Conflict in Design Teams Support the Development of Creative Ideas? . Paris: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Roozenburg, N., & Eekels, J. (1998). Productontwerpen, structuur en methoden. Den Haag: Uitgeverij LEMMA BV.

Roozenburg, N., & Eekels, J. (1998). Productontwerpen, structuur en methoden. Den Haag: Uitgeverij LEMMA BV.

9


Tim Haats, L. F. (2011). Conflict And Creativity Within Design Teams . Churchhill: Carleton.

Waxer, M., & Morton, J. (2003). Cognitive Conflict and Learning. London, Ontario: The University of Western Ontario.

William J. Rothwell, H. C. (2011). Mastering the Instructional Design Process: A Systematic Approac. London: John Wiley & Sons .

10


APPENDIX

L I T E R A T U R E R E V I E W

J U L I A N J A G T E N B E R G Y O R I C K D E B O E R D A V I D M O O N E Y

D A N I Ë L V A N D E N H A A K

Research Question: “What is the development of conflicts (Cognitive, affective and Process conflicts) in the different design phases?”

Analyzing the topic:

Constraints:

- Basic design process

(roozenburgper. eekels)

- Constrain ourselves to the types

of conflicts described in the

paper.

INTRODUCTION

The design process is a process we all do in our daily lives. Without even knowing it. (Cross, 2008) You could also see it as problem solving. And we do nothing else but that. Everything you undertake is the result of solved small or big problems. In this case we focus on the design process for products. There a different ways of approaching a design process. There isn’t like one way everyone handles. Every person undergoes a different process with different emotions and ideas behind it. Although there is a general process or pattern we can recognize in almost every product design development process. Which consists of the following elements (William J. Rothwell, 2011) (Eekels & Roozenburg, 1998)

1. Analysis: In this part of the design process information is being gathered,

analyzed and clustered. There has to be gathered as much relevant information as possible. Eventually only the useful information should be filtered.

6. Synthesis: This is the idea-generation and conceptualization period of the process. This part is essential for the rest of the project and determines the innovation/functionality levels.

7. Simulation: In this part several concepts should be developed. These are combinations of the ideas in the synthesis phase. These concepts meet the program of requirements. The concepts should be tested with prototypes.

8. Evaluation: Here you will test the performance and overall quality of your concepts. There several selection methods to describe and test the way your final concepts perform.

9. Decision: In this phase you compare the results of the final concepts with each other. There are 2 ways of doing this: nominal and ordinal method. (Eekels & Roozenburg, 1998) After this phase you’ve decided which one of your concepts is the best. And is the concept you will finalize for its eventual goal.

We’ll discuss in the next part what is important about the design process and how we are able to compare the process with the cognitive conflicts that arise together within this subject. (Petra Badka-Schaub, 2010)

BODY

Team polarity and creative performance in innovation teams, Jan Kratzer (Engelen, 2011) This paper focuses on how the

conflict affects the creativity and the

complexity of the situations which

occur as a result of this. The author

also looks at the factors that enhance

11


or obstruct innovation through an

evaluation of the subcomponents of

tasks and phases in the design

process from the idea phase through

to the commercialization phase.

An empirical study was conducted on 51 teams in different companies focusing on various industries. They were individually questioned on their experience and field of work. The design teams were given a design task and were asked to rate the teams creative performance on a scale of 1 to 7 from “not at all” to “highly creative”. It was found that the relationship between team cohesiveness and creative performance is negative showing that it is not statistically significant. This paper also shows the important aspect of communication and how that affects team performance. The size of the conflict also has a detrimental effect to the design team which is expected. In our research we will discuss various stages in the design process following the Roozenburg method of designing. Conflict and creativity in design teams, Tim Haats Lois Frankel (Tim Haats, 2011) This paper focused on the

relationship between conflict and

creativity and how this effect the

generation of ideas and how it also

effects the ensuing design process.

It was found that if experienced at a moderate level Cognitive conflict, “if experienced at a moderate level, is found to be beneficial for stimulating creativity whereas affective conflict is considered detrimental”. This shows some very useful insights into the way conflict affects design there is a clear relationship between

cognitive conflict and team creativity and is best established during the early phases of the design process. This will give us a very good insight into how to approach the research proposal and what will be a valuable area to research. This relates quite well to the current research question as it will focus on how Conflict was found to be strongest in the early phases of the design process as there was a higher chance of varying ideas and approaches by all sides. There is less organisation during this phase and more chances for the personalities of the different team members to come out to influence the direction of the design. In conclusion, this paper shows that conflict can be both beneficial and detrimental to the design process and how well the team works together through key factors such as personal taste, task related issues and how the information is interpreted by different members of the design team.

Types of Conflicts: (Petra Badka-Schaub, 2010)

- Affective: Conflicts that relate to differences regarding personal issues, negative emotions and unsatisfactory relationships among team members.

- Cognitive: Cognitive conflict was defined as difference in perspective or judgment related to the task at hand; it pertains to predominantly different views or opinions during solution discussions.

- Process: Process conflicts are conflicts that, similar to cognitive conflicts, are linked to the task but involve issues related to the mode of accomplishing the task

How these types of conflicts are measured:

How conflicts are detected in general: (Petra Badka-Schaub, 2010)

12


The detection of ‘conflict’ is based on

verbal interaction, that is all verbal

exchanges among team members.

Process conflicts: (Amason, 1996)

Three items measuring process conflict were taken from Shah and Jehn (1993): "How often do members of your work unit disagree about who should do what?" "How frequently do members of your work unit disagree about the way to complete a group task?" and "How much conflict is there about delegation of tasks within your work unit?" The coefficient alpha for process conflict was .78.

From: Why Differences Make a Difference: A Field Study of Diversity, Conflict, and Performance in Workgroups

Cognitive and affective conflict were measured with seven items from a scale developed and used by Jehn (1992, 1994).

During the design process there are lots of moments where an individual or multiple members in a team have to make decisions. A good example is choosing which concept to develop, in the Evaluation-element of the design process. Of course this isn’t the only moment. Designing, especially in a team, constantly consists of making decisions. (Roozenburg & Eekels, 1998)

Research has shown that both conflict and trust are the most important factors contributing to decision outcomes. (Parayitam & Dooley, 2006) Cognitive conflict and cognition-based trust are far more important than any other type of conflict, say affective conflict, in decision-making. Taking this into account and knowing that evaluating/making choices is important in the design process, it is a good thing to know in which stage of the design

process the amount of cognitive conflict is the highest and/or lowest.

So cognitive conflict plays and important role in the design process. Other research seeks to examine how to react to these types of conflict. (Ayoko & Callan, 2010) This includes other team-members’ reactions but also leadership. If we know which stage in the design process has the most cognitive conflicts, we can adapt in the best way possible.

Types of cognitive mechanisms To find out whether there is cognitive conflict we have to know how to recognize this type is used. This paper focuses on to

cognitive mechanisms. The two cognitive

mechanisms are (Kryssanov, Tamaki &

Kitamura, 1999, Hsiao & Chou, 2004):

a form of divergent thinking, which is

the ability to generate original, dis- tinct

and elaborate ideas; and a form of

convergent thinking, which is the

ability to logically evaluate and find the

best solution from a variety of feasible

alternatives. A parallel between these

two mechanisms and the four basic

cognitive operations proposed by

Stemple and Badke-Schaub (2002) can

be drawn: the generation and

exploration processes serve to widen

the design space through the use of

divergent thinking and the comparison

and selection phases represent

convergent thinking. (Fernandez, 2009)

13


R E S U L T S

COGNITIVE CONFLICTS

Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

Phase 1: cognitive 3,79 1,320 29





Multivariate Testsa

Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Partial Eta

Squared

Noncent.

Parameter

Observed

Powerc

Phase

Pillai's Trace ,618 10,113b 4,000 25,000 ,000 ,618 40,454 ,999

Wilks' Lambda ,382 10,113b 4,000 25,000 ,000 ,618 40,454 ,999

Hotelling's Trace 1,618 10,113b 4,000 25,000 ,000 ,618 40,454 ,999

Roy's Largest Root 1,618 10,113b 4,000 25,000 ,000 ,618 40,454 ,999

a. Design: Intercept

Within Subjects Design: Phase

b. Exact statistic

c. Computed using alpha = ,05

14


Pairwise Comparisons

Measure: MEASURE_1

(I) Phase (J) Phase Mean Difference (I-

J)

Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Difference

b

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1

2 -1,724* ,361 ,001 -2,824 -,624

3 -2,069* ,336 ,000 -3,094 -1,044

4 -1,241* ,390 ,035 -2,429 -,054

5 -1,276 ,421 ,052 -2,558 ,006

2

1 1,724* ,361 ,001 ,624 2,824

3 -,345 ,388 1,000 -1,529 ,839

4 ,483 ,426 1,000 -,815 1,780

5 ,448 ,429 1,000 -,858 1,754

3

1 2,069* ,336 ,000 1,044 3,094

2 ,345 ,388 1,000 -,839 1,529

4 ,828 ,378 ,372 -,325 1,980

5 ,793 ,389 ,509 -,392 1,978

4

1 1,241* ,390 ,035 ,054 2,429

2 -,483 ,426 1,000 -1,780 ,815

3 -,828 ,378 ,372 -1,980 ,325

5 -,034 ,431 1,000 -1,348 1,279

5

1 1,276 ,421 ,052 -,006 2,558

2 -,448 ,429 1,000 -1,754 ,858

3 -,793 ,389 ,509 -1,978 ,392

4 ,034 ,431 1,000 -1,279 1,348

Based on estimated marginal means

*. The mean difference is significant at the ,05 level.

b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

AFFECTIVE CONFLICTS



Phase 1: affective 3,83 1,311 29





15


Multivariate Testsa


Squared

Noncent.

Parameter

Observed

Powerc

Phase

Pillai's Trace ,770 20,965b 4,000 25,000 ,000 ,770 83,861 1,000

Wilks' Lambda ,230 20,965b 4,000 25,000 ,000 ,770 83,861 1,000

Hotelling's Trace 3,354 20,965b 4,000 25,000 ,000 ,770 83,861 1,000

Roy's Largest Root 3,354 20,965b 4,000 25,000 ,000 ,770 83,861 1,000



b. Exact statistic



Measure: MEASURE_1

(I) Phase (J) Phase Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Difference

b


1

2 -1,828* ,326 ,000 -2,820 -,835

3 -1,414* ,370 ,007 -2,541 -,287

4 ,552 ,402 1,000 -,673 1,776

5 ,690 ,458 1,000 -,705 2,085

2

1 1,828* ,326 ,000 ,835 2,820

3 ,414 ,402 1,000 -,810 1,638

4 2,379* ,376 ,000 1,234 3,525

5 2,517* ,426 ,000 1,220 3,815

3

1 1,414* ,370 ,007 ,287 2,541

2 -,414 ,402 1,000 -1,638 ,810

4 1,966* ,462 ,002 ,559 3,372

5 2,103* ,544 ,006 ,445 3,762

4

1 -,552 ,402 1,000 -1,776 ,673

2 -2,379* ,376 ,000 -3,525 -1,234

3 -1,966* ,462 ,002 -3,372 -,559

5 ,138 ,595 1,000 -1,675 1,951

5

1 -,690 ,458 1,000 -2,085 ,705

2 -2,517* ,426 ,000 -3,815 -1,220

3 -2,103* ,544 ,006 -3,762 -,445

4 -,138 ,595 1,000 -1,951 1,675




16


PROCESS CONFLICTS



Phase 1: process 4,14 1,529 29

Phase 2: process 5,55 ,910 29




Multivariate Testsa


Squared

Noncent.

Parameter

Observed

Powerc

Phase

Pillai's Trace ,782 22,380b 4,000 25,000 ,000 ,782 89,521 1,000

Wilks' Lambda ,218 22,380b 4,000 25,000 ,000 ,782 89,521 1,000

Hotelling's Trace 3,581 22,380b 4,000 25,000 ,000 ,782 89,521 1,000

Roy's Largest Root 3,581 22,380b 4,000 25,000 ,000 ,782 89,521 1,000



b. Exact statistic


17



Measure: MEASURE_1

(I) Phase (J) Phase Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Difference

b


1

2 -1,414* ,292 ,000 -2,302 -,525

3 -1,172 ,406 ,075 -2,411 ,066

4 ,621 ,502 1,000 -,910 2,151

5 1,276* ,321 ,005 ,297 2,255

2

1 1,414* ,292 ,000 ,525 2,302

3 ,241 ,353 1,000 -,835 1,318

4 2,034* ,395 ,000 ,830 3,239

5 2,690* ,290 ,000 1,807 3,573

3

1 1,172 ,406 ,075 -,066 2,411

2 -,241 ,353 1,000 -1,318 ,835

4 1,793* ,477 ,008 ,340 3,247

5 2,448* ,495 ,000 ,939 3,957

4

1 -,621 ,502 1,000 -2,151 ,910

2 -2,034* ,395 ,000 -3,239 -,830

3 -1,793* ,477 ,008 -3,247 -,340

5 ,655 ,433 1,000 -,665 1,976

5

1 -1,276* ,321 ,005 -2,255 -,297

2 -2,690* ,290 ,000 -3,573 -1,807

3 -2,448* ,495 ,000 -3,957 -,939

4 -,655 ,433 1,000 -1,976 ,665




18


Q U E S T I O NN A I R E – P I L O T

This research is done because we want to study the different types of conflicts throughout the different design phases. We’re glad that you want to join this research, it really helps us out.

We would like you to say everything you think and undertake while doing the research, so we can get a good view of what is going on.

Phase 1: Analysis (Introduction/Interpretation of the assignment and gathering information)

1. There was a form of a affective conflict in this phase:

Agree ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ Don’t agree

2. There was a form of cognitive conflict:


3. There was a form of a process conflict:


Phase 2: Synthesis (coming up with ideas, brainstorming, concepts, checklist)







Phase 3: Simulation (simulate one of your concepts or ideas, to check if it works in reality)







Phase 4: Evaluation (compare all the ideas and concepts next to each other (harris profile e.g.) and choose 3 final concepts)

19








Phase 5: Decision (Decide which of the combined ideas/concepts you choose to hand in as a final idea for this assignment, see if it fits the program of requirements)




Agree○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ Don’t agree



Last questions:

Did you think you really showed your abilities in designing?


Did you go through all the phases you normally go through?


Research Proposal B06 Cognitive Conflicts 4269861

Documents

Transcript of Research Proposal B06 Cognitive Conflicts 4269861