Use of analogies by novice and experienced design engineers

Saeema Ahmed, Bo T. Christensen

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingArticle in proceedingsResearchpeer-review

    Abstract

    This paper describes a study to understand the use of analogies by design engineers with different levels of experience. Protocol analyses of twelve design engineers have been analysed to understand the functions and reasoning of the analogies. The protocols are real world data from the aerospace industry. The findings indicate a significant difference in both the functions and reasoning by novices and experienced designers. Novices were found to predominantly transfer information without explicit reference to design issues, whereas experienced designers tended to either solve or identify problems. Experienced designers were found to reason about the function of a component and to some degree the predicted behaviour of the component, whereas the novices seem to lack such reasoning processes.
    Original languageEnglish
    Title of host publicationASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences Computers & Information in Engineering Conference
    Place of PublicationNew York, NY
    PublisherAmerican Society of Mechanical Engineers
    Publication date2008
    ISBN (Print)07-91-83831-5
    Publication statusPublished - 2008
    EventASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences Computers & Information in Engineering Conference August 3-6 - New York, NY
    Duration: 1 Jan 2008 → …
    Conference number: 2008

    Conference

    ConferenceASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences Computers & Information in Engineering Conference August 3-6
    Number2008
    CityNew York, NY
    Period01/01/2008 → …

    Bibliographical note

    Paper no. 49293

    Keywords

    • reasoning
    • problem solving
    • Analogies

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Use of analogies by novice and experienced design engineers'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this