Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T15:20:30.011Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influencers in design teams: a computational framework to study their impact on idea generation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2021

Harshika Singh Open the ORCID record for Harshika Singh [Opens in a new window] ,
Gaetano Cascini  and
Christopher McComb
Harshika Singh*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy
Gaetano Cascini
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy
Christopher McComb
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Harshika Singh, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is known that wherever there is human interaction, there is social influence. Here, we refer to more influential individuals as “influencers”, who drive team processes for better or worst. Social influence gives rise to social learning, the propensity of humans to mimic the most influential individuals. As individual learning is affected by the presence of an influencer, so is an individual's idea generation . Examining this phenomenon through a series of human studies would require an enormous amount of time to study both individual and team behaviors that affect design outcomes. Hence, this paper provides an agent-based approach to study the effect of influencers during idea generation. This model is supported by the results of two empirical experiments which validate the assumptions and sustain the logic implemented in the model. The results of the model simulation make it possible to examine the impact of influencers on design outcomes, assessed in the form of exploration of design solution space and quality of the solution. The results show that teams with a few prominent influencers generate solutions with limited diversity. Moreover, during idea generation, the behavior of the teams with uniform distribution of influence is regulated by their team members' self-efficacy.

Keywords

agent-based approachcollaborative designdesign outcomesexplorationidea generationinfluencersquality
Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , August 2021 , pp. 332 - 352
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abar, S, Theodoropoulos, GK, Lemarinier, P and O'Hare, GM (2017) Agent based modelling and simulation tools: a review of the state-of-art software. Computer Science Review 24, 13–33.10.1016/j.cosrev.2017.03.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agars, MD, Kaufman, JC and Locke, TR (2008) Social influence and creativity in organizations: A multi-level lens for theory, research, and practice. In Mumford, MD, Hunter, ST and Bedell-Avers, KE (eds), Multi-Level Issues in Creativity and Innovation (Research in Multi-Level Issues, Vol. 7). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 3–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-9144(07)00001-X.Google Scholar
Aries, EJ, Gold, C and Weigel, RH (1983) Dispositional and situational influences on dominance behavior in small groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44, 779–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, SJ (2015) Exploration of equality and processes of non-hierarchical groups. Journal of Organisational Transformation & Social Change 12, 138–158. doi:10.1179/1477963315Z.00000000039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, LJ, Lambell, NJ, Reed, SE and Reid, FJM (2001) The exploration of solution options in design: a ‘naturalistic decision making’ perspective. In Lloyd, P and Christiaans, H (eds), Designing in Context. Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University Press, pp. 79–93.Google Scholar
Ball, LJ, Ormerod, TC and Morley, NJ (2004) Spontaneous analogising in engineering design: a comparative analysis of experts and novices. Design Studies 25, 495–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banaji, RM (1986) Affect and Memory: An Experimental Investigation. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Bandura, A (1977 a) Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Bandura, A (1977 b) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review 84, 191–215.10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandura, A (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.Google Scholar
Becattini, N and Cascini, G (2016) Improving self-efficacy in solving inventive problems with TRIZ. In Corazza, G and Agnoli, S (eds), Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking. Creativity in the Twenty First Century. Singapore: Springer, pp. 195–213.Google Scholar
Becattini, N, Cascini, G, O'Hare, JA and Morosi, F (2019) Extracting and analysing design process data from log files of ICT supported co-creative sessions. Proc. Int. Conf. Engineering Design ICED’19. Delft, The Netherlands: The Design Society, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonabeau, E (2002) Agent-based modeling: methods and techniques for simulating human systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) 99, 7280–7287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, V and Paulus, PB (1996) A simple dynamic model of social factors in group brainstorming. Small Group Research 27, 91–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R and Pehrson, S (2019) Innovation and changes in groups: minority influence. In Brown, R and Pehrson, S (eds), Group Processes: Dynamics Within and Between Groups. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 85–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, V, Tumeo, M, Larey, TS and Paulus, PB (1998) Modeling cognitive interactions during group brainstorming. Small Group Research 29, 495–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cagan, J and Kotovsky, K (1997) Simulated annealing and the generation of the objective function: a model of learning during problem solving. Computational Intelligence 13, 534–581.10.1111/0824-7935.00051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carberry, AR, Lee, H-S and Ohland, MW (2010) Measuring engineering design self-efficacy. Journal of Engineering Education 99, 71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carley, KM (1996) A comparison of artificial and human organizations. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 31, 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carley, KM and Gasser, L (1999) Computational organization theory. In Weiss, G (ed.), Multiagent Systems: A Modern Approach to Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 299–330.Google Scholar
Costa, AC (2003) Work team trust and effectiveness. Personnel Review 32, 605–622. doi:10.1108/00483480310488360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cvetković, D and Parmee, I (2002) Agent-based support within an interactive evolutionary design system. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 16, 331–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danes, JE, Lindsey-Mullikin, J and Lertwachara, K (2020) The sequential order and quality of ideas in electronic brainstorming. International Journal of Information Management 53, 1–5.10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dionne, SD, Sayama, H, Hao, C and Bush, BJ (2010) The role of leadership in shared mental model convergence and team performance improvement: an agent-based computational model. The Leadership Quarterly 21, 1035–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorst, K and Cross, N (2001) Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies 22, 425–437.10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dugosh, KL and Paulus, PB (2005) Cognitive and social comparison processes in brainstorming. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 41, 313–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrich, AB and Haymaker, JR (2012) Multiattribute interaction design: an integrated conceptual design process for modeling interactions and maximizing value. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 26, 85–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eliassi-Rad, T and Shavlik, J (2003) A system for building intelligent agents that learn to retrieve and extract information. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 13, 35–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D (1989) The mechanisms of analogical learning. In Vosniadou, S and Ortony, A (eds), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 199–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, JS and Kannengiesser, U (2004) Modelling expertise of temporary design teams. Journal of Design Research 4, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goucher-Lambert, K, Moss, J and Cagan, J (2019) A neuroimaging investigation of design ideation with and without inspirational stimuli understanding the meaning of near and far stimuli. Design Studies 60, 1–38.10.1016/j.destud.2018.07.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granovetter, MS (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78, 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, G (1997) Modelling concept design evaluation. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 11, 211–217.10.1017/S0890060400003139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinds, PJ, Carley, KM, Krackhardt, D and Wholey, D (2000) Choosing work group members: balancing similarity, competence, and familiarity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 81, 226–251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hulse, D, Tumer, K, Hoyle, C and Tumer, I (2019) Modeling multidisciplinary design with multiagent learning. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 33, 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinsmann, M and Valkenburg, R (2008) Barriers and enablers for creating shared understanding in co-design projects. Design Studies 29, 369–386.10.1016/j.destud.2008.03.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landfried, GA, Fernández, DS and Mocskos, E (2019) Faithfulness-boost effect: loyal teammate selection correlates with skill acquisition improvement in online games. PLoS ONE 14, e0211014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lapp, S, Jablokow, K and McComb, C (2019) KABOOM: an agent-based model for simulating cognitive styles in team problem solving. Design Science 5, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larey, TS and Paulus, PB (1999) Group preference and convergent tendencies in small groups: a content analysis of group brainstorming performance. Creativity Research Journal 12, 175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, KH and Lee, K-Y (2002) Agent-based collaborative design system and conflict resolution based on a case-based reasoning approach. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 16, 93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibowitz, N, Baum, B, Enden, G and Karniel, A (2010) The exponential learning equation as a function of successful trials results in sigmoid performance. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 54, 338–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liew, P-S and Gero, JS (2004) Constructive memory for situated design agents. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 18, 163–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maher, ML, Rosenman, M and Merrick, K (2007) Agents for multidisciplinary design in virtual worlds. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 21, 267–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McComb, C (2016) Designing the Characteristics of Design Teams via Cognitively Inspired Computational Modeling. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
McComb, C, Cagan, J and Kotovsky, K (2015) Lifting the Veil: drawing insights about design teams from a cognitively inspired computational model. Design Studies 40, 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McComb, C, Cagan, J and Kotovsky, K (2017) Optimizing design teams based on problem properties computational team simulations and an applied empirical test. Journal of Mechanical Design 139, 041101-1–041101-12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
More, JS and Lingam, C (2019) A SI model for social media influencer maximization. Applied Computing and Informatics 15, 102–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mui, L, Mohtashemi, M and Halberstadt, A (2002) A Computational Model of Trust and Reputation. Hawaii: IEEE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murdock, BB (1962) The serial position effect of free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology 64, 482–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, DG (1982) Polarizing effects of social interaction. In Brandstatter, H, Davis, JH and Stocker-Kreichgauer, G (eds), Group Decision Making. London: Academic Press, pp. 125–161.Google Scholar
Nowak, A, Szamrej, J and Latané, B (1990) From private attitude to public opinion: a dynamic theory of social impact. Psychological Review 97, 362–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberauer, K and Lewandowsky, S (2008) Forgetting in immediate serial recall: decay, temporal distinctiveness, or interference? Psychological Review 115, 544–576.10.1037/0033-295X.115.3.544CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Brien, MJ and Bentley, RA (2011) Stimulated variation and cascades: two processes in the evolution of complex technological systems. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 18, 309–335.10.1007/s10816-011-9110-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohland, MW, Loughry, ML, Woehr, DJ, Bullard, LG, Felder, RM, Finelli, CJ, Layton, RA, Pomeranz, HR and Schmucker, DG (2012) The comprehensive assessment of team member effectiveness: development of a behaviorally anchored rating scale for self- and peer evaluation. Academy of Management Learning & Education 11, 609–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paivio, A (1969) Mental imagery in associative learning and memory. Psychological Review 76, 241–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulus, PB (2000) Groups, teams, and creativity: the creative potential of idea-generating groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review 49, 237–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulus, PB and Dzindolet, MT (1993) Social influence processes in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64, 575–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulus, PB and Dzindolet, M (2008) Social influence, creativity and innovation. Social Influence 3, 228–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perišić, MM, Štorga, M and Gero, JS (2018) Exploring the effect of experience on team behavior: a computational approach. International Conference on Design Computing and Cognition'18. Lecco, Italy, pp. 595–612.Google Scholar
Pillai, R and Williams, EA (2004) Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group cohesiveness, commitment, and performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management 17, 144–159. doi:10.1108/09534810410530584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proschan, F (2012) Theoretical explanation of observed decreasing failure rate. Technometrics 5, 375–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, D and Grushka-Cockayne, Y (2010) The similarity heuristic. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 24, 23–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, RM and Deci, EL (2000) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, 54–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salas, E et al. (2005) Modeling team performance: the basic ingredients and research needs. In Rouse, WB and Boff, KR (eds), Organizational Simulation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 185–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, R and Gero, JS (2004) Curious agents and situated design evaluations. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 18, 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sayama, H, Farrell, DL and Dionne, SD (2010) The effects of mental model formation on group decision making: an agent-based simulation. Complexity 16, 49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreiber, C, Singh, S and Carley, KM (2004) Construct – A Multi-Agent Network Model for the Co-evolution of Agents and Socio-Cultural Environments. Pittsburgh, USA: CASOS – Center for Computational Analysis of Social and Organizational Systems, Carnegie Mellon University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, JJ, Smith, SM and Vargas-Hernandez, N (2003) Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Design Studies 24, 111–134.10.1016/S0142-694X(02)00034-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, V (2009) Computational Studies on the Role of Social Learning in the Formation of Team Mental Models (PhD thesis). Design Lab Faculty of Architecture, Design and Planning the University of Sydney, Sydney.Google Scholar
Singh, V, Dong, A and Gero, JS (2011) How important is team structure to team performance? Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 11). Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Singh, H, Cascini, G, Casakin, H and Singh, V (2019) A computational framework for exploring the socio-cognitive features of teams and their influence on design outcomes. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED19). Delft, The Netherlands: The Design Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, H, Cascini, G and McComb, C (2020) Analysing the effect of self-efficacy and influencers on design team performance. Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference. Dubrovnik, Croatia: The Design Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stempfle, J and Badke-Schaub, P (2002) Thinking in design teams - an analysis of team communication. Design Studies 23, 473–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Syna Desivilya, Helena and Eizen, Dafna (2005) CONFLICT MANAGEMENT IN WORK TEAMS: THE ROLE OF SOCIAL SELF‐EFFICACY AND GROUP IDENTIFICATION. International Journal of Conflict Management 16, 183–208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb022928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whiten, A, McGuigan, N, Marshall-Pescini, S and Hopper, LM (2009) Emulation, imitation, over-imitation and the scope of culture for child and chimpanzee. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364, 2417–2428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkins, DJ (2002) The Bathtub curve and product failure behavior, part one: The Bathtub curve, infant mortality and burn-in. Reliability Hotwire: The eMagazine for the Reliability Professional (21). Available at https://www.weibull.com/hotwire/issue21/hottopics21.htmGoogle Scholar
Wimmer, EG and Shohamy, D (2012) Preference by association: how memory mechanisms in the hippocampus bias decisions. Science 338, 270–273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, Z and Duffy, AH (2004) Modeling collective learning in design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 18, 289–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar