TY - JOUR
T1 - Differences in thinking styles across professionals with different academic backgrounds when developing a product
AU - Tonetto, Leandro Miletto
AU - Brust-Renck, Priscila G.
AU - Ruecker, Stanley
AU - Fogliatto, Flavio S.
AU - Pacheco, Diego Augusto de Jesus
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) [grant numbers 307113/2017-5, 303509/2015-5].
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
Copyright:
Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Thinking styles
KW - conceptual design
KW - decision-making style
KW - product design
KW - thinking disposition
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85089030267&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85089030267&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/17452007.2020.1801376
DO - 10.1080/17452007.2020.1801376
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85089030267
SN - 1745-2007
VL - 17
SP - 3
EP - 16
JO - Architectural Engineering and Design Management
JF - Architectural Engineering and Design Management
IS - 1-2
ER -