Designing as Weaving Topics: Coding Topic Threads in Design Conversations

Conference Paper (PDF Available) · November 2015with 488 Reads
Conference: IASDR15, At Brisbane, Australia
Abstract
This paper introduces the visual coding method Topic Markup Scheme (TMS) that represents the topical structure of a conversation in form of topic threads. TMS works on the level of move­ to ­move conversation analysis. We will define the entity of move­ topics (m-­topic), discuss how they relate to each other and how their relation can be represented in the form of topic threads. In addition, we will introduce a software tool, developed to support the coding process and to visualize the representation of topic threads. Such a representation will provide a better understanding of how topic alignment, coherence and disruption in discourse are contributing to design activities and ­outcome. We have developed this method to find evidence for our hypothesis, which we call Topic Emergence (TE). The basic assumption of TE is that topical structures in conversations are emergent.
Figures - uploaded by Axel Menning
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Axel Menning
No caption available
… 
No caption available
… 
IASDR2015Interplay|25November|Brisbane,Australia  
1
DesigningasWeavingTopics:
CodingTopicThreadsinDesign
Conversations
Axel Menning, Hasso Plattner Institute  School of Design Thinking,
Andrea Scheer, Hasso Plattner Institute  School of Design Thinking,
Benjamin Heinz Meier, Hasso Plattner Institute  School of Design Thinking,
Claudia Nicolai, Hasso Plattner Institute  School of Design Thinking,
Abstract:
ThispaperintroducesthevisualcodingmethodTopicMarkupScheme(TMS)that
representsthetopicalstructureofaconversationinformoftopicthreads.TMSworks
onthelevelofmovetomoveconversationanalysis.Wewilldefinetheentityof
movetopics(mtopic),discusshowtheyrelatetoeachotherandhowtheirrelation
canberepresentedintheformoftopicthreads.Inaddition,wewillintroducea
softwaretool,developedtosupportthecodingprocessandtovisualizethe
representationoftopicthreads.Sucharepresentationwillprovideabetter
understandingofhowtopicalignment,coherenceanddiscontinuityindiscourseare
contributingtodesignactivitiesandoutcome.Wehavedevelopedthismethodtofind
evidenceforourhypothesis,whichwecallTopicEmergence(TE).Thebasic
assumptionofTEisthattopicalstructuresinconversationsareemergent.
DesignThinking;ConversationAnalysis;Topics;TopicMarkupScheme,TopicEmergence
1.Introduction
Teambaseddesignandinnovationactivities,likeDesignThinking,areconversation
intensive(Plattner,Meinel,Weinberg,2009).Asconversationsarehighlycontext
depended(vanDijk,2008)thedescriptionandanalysisofdesignconversations
unveilsrelevantinformationaboutgenuineaspectsofdesignbehavior.Suchacontext
parameteristheworkonilldefinedproblems(Cross,2011).Thisspecificcontext
influencesdesignconversationsinthewayhowtopicsarebeinghandled.The
designer’sfocus“alternatescontinuallyfromsmallcomponentparts,backtothe
wholeproblem,andbacktootherdetails”(Rittel,1987).Inthispaperweintroduce
IASDR2015Interplay|25November|Brisbane,Australia 2
theTopicMarkupScheme(TMS)todescribehowtopicsindesignconversationsare
treatedandhowtheyarerelatedandalignedtooneanother.Inourcasethetermtopic
correspondswithtermsusedinlinguisticliterature:discoursetopic((dtopic)van
Dijk,1977;Roberts,1996)andquestionunderdiscussion((QUD)Ginzburg,1994).
DtopicandQUDcanbeaccountedasthe“centralorganizingfactorindiscourse”
(Roberts,1996).WiththeTMSweareaimingatdescribingandanalyzingthese
organizingfactorsindesignconversations.TMSiscapableofcapturingthetopical
structureofconversationsandrepresentingitinformoftopicthreads.The
representationoftopicthreadshelpsdesignteamsanddesigneducatorstomonitor
teamwork.DesignThinkingresearchwillbeabletofurtheranalyzeandinterpret
topicthreadstobetterunderstandgenuinebehavioralpatternsindesigning.Wehave
developedthismethodtodescribeaphenomenonthatwesuggesttocallTopic
Emergence(TE).Wehypothesizethatnewdesignideascanbeaccountedashigher
orderoutcomesbasedonemergenttopicalstructures.Wewillfurtherelaborateonthe
TEhypothesisinsection8.
2.RelatedWork
OurmethodTMSbuildsonGrosz,JoshiandWeinstein’sCenteringTheory(CT;
Grosz,Joshi,Weinstein,1983&Grosz,Joshi,Weinstein,1994).CTisamodelto
describediscoursecoherence.Byassigningalistofforwardlookingcenters(potential
topics)andbackwardlookingcenters(referringtopics)toutterances,thetransition
statebetweenthecentersoftwosubsequentutterancescanbedetermined.Groszetal.
arestudyingtherelationbetweenattention,inferenceandlocalcoherenceindiscourse
andsuggestthattheattentionalstateofdiscourseparticipantsdependsondiscourse
coherencewhereascoherencecorresponds“inparttothedifferentdemandsfor
inferencemadebydifferenttypesofreferringexpressions“(Grosz,Joshi,&
Weinstein,1994).Withthedetectionofdiscoursecoherenceanddiscontinuationin
certainstatesofdesignconversations,webuildontheworkofGroszandcolleagues.
TMSisalsorelatedtoGoldschmidt’sresearchontheconstructionandrepresentation
oftopicsandtheiralignment.GoldschmidtdevelopedLinkography,whichisa
methodtorepresenttopicallinksinconversations(Goldschmidt1990,2014).A
Linkographcapturesmoves,theirenvironmentofreferencesandonagloballevel,
topicchunks.AccordingtoGoldschmidt,amoveisacriticalmovewhenthe
thresholdnumberoflinkshasbeenexceeded(Goldschmidt,2014).Criticalmoves
mayserveastriggersforasetofpropositions(prospective)orcombineexisting
moves(retrospective).Topicchunksresultfromtheconnectionofmovesthatshare
thesamesemanticvalue.Linkographyprovidesinsightsaboutthechronologyand
immediatealignmentofmoves.Essentially,Linkographyshowsthattopicsare
relativetothesemanticsurrounding.Thiscontextdependencyoftopicsisalsopresent
inCTbytheseparationofpotentialtopics(forwardlookingcenters)andreferencing
topics(backwardlookingcenters).Insection3wewillfurtherrealizethecontext
dependencyoftopics.
IASDR2015Interplay|25November|Brisbane,Australia 3
3.Topicdependenciesandtopicentitiesinconversations
Aprominentlinguisticdistinctionoftopicsiswhatasentenceisabout(sentencetopic
(stopic)),andwhatasequenceofrecurringsentencetopicsisabout(discoursetopic
(dtopic)).Ingeneral,theassignmentoftopicsindiscourseis“determinedrelativeto
thesemanticstructureofthediscourseorthepragmaticstructureofthecontext.”(van
Dijk,1977).Thedependencyoftopicstothesemanticdiscoursestructurereflectsthe
meaningofpossibleboundsbetweenwordsintherecentconversationhistory.Take
thefollowingexample:
(1) A:“Tomiseatingcake.”
(2) B:“WhatisTomdoing?”
A:“Tomiseatingcake.”
Withoutknowingtheconversation,inwhich(1)isembedded,thetopicof(1)cannot
bedefined.Presumably,<Tom>isthesubjectanditcouldbeinferredthatthe
speaker’sintentionistotellmoreaboutTom.But(1)seenasaconversationsnippet,
couldalsobeabout<eating>or<cake>.Taking(2)intoconsideration,itbecomes
clearthatthetopicis<Tom>whilethecommentis<iseatingcake>.Thiscomparison
illustratesthesemanticdependencyofdtopics.Asentencebyitselfprovidesa
potentialdtopicbutonlyasequenceofsentencescancarrydtopics.Nexttothe
semanticdependency,topicsarealsorelativetoaratherimplicitinstanceofmeaning
making:The“pragmaticstructureofthecontext”(vanDijk,1977).Pragmatics
considersthespeaker’sindividualassumptionofthemutualinterpretationofcontext.
“Contextsarecalled‘contexts’preciselybecausetheyarenot‘texts’[...]Context
modelsandtheirpropertiesremainlargelyimplicitandpresupposed”(vanDijk,
2008).Thereforetheanalysisoftopicsinconversationshastoconsiderthecommon
epistemologicalgroundofacertaincommunicativesituationuponwhichaspeaker
buildswhenheisstatingsomething.Takethefollowingexample:
(3)[AandBarediscussingthepreparationofacakeforTom’sbirthday.]
A:“Wemustnotforgetcandles.”
Itwouldbedifficulttoidentifythemeaningmakingconnectionbetweencakeand
candleswithoutknowingthatcandlesarecommoncomponentsofbirthdaycakes,at
leastinWesterncultures.Withregardtothispossibledistanceofmeaningbetween
speakerandaconversationanalyst,wecanreasonthatthecodingaccuracyshouldbe
ensuredbyfollowinganapproachsimilartotheapproachofassigningcentersinCT.
Inthiscaseatleastonepotentialtopicgetsassigntoeachutteranceand
retrospectivelyverifiedaccordingtothereferencemadebythesubsequentutterance.
Sofarwehaveaddressedtheissueofcontextdependencywhenitcomesto
identifyingtopicsinconversations.Inthefollowingsegmentwewillintroducethe
topicentitymovetopic(mtopic).TMSrepresentsthetopicalstructureofa
IASDR2015Interplay|25November|Brisbane,Australia 4
conversationonthemovetomovelevel,whichisacommonanalysislevelfordesign
conversations(e.g.Sonalkar,2012;Glock,2009).Amoveistheverbalcontribution
ofapersontoaconversationatacertaintime.Everymoveconsistsoftheparameters
moveID,speakerIDandmovetopic(mtopic)tn.Thelengthofamovemayvary
fromasinglewordtomultisentencestatements.Therefore,amovecancontainnos
topic,anstopic,oradtopic.Inordertomeetthisvarietywithaflexibleassessment
ofourcodingmethod,wedefinetheformalconstitutionofmtopicstnasanewtopic
entityforconversationanalysis.Firstlywedefine,thatamovealwayscarriestopical
value.
(4)tn<stopic:tn=tn1
(5)tn==stopic:tn=stopic
(6)tn>stopic:tn=dtopic
Ifamovedoesnotcarryaninherentstopic,whichisthecasewithonewordmoves,
weassignthesametopicalvalueasinthepreviousmove(4).Ifthemoveisa
sentence,themtopicisidenticalwiththestopic(5).Ifthemoveconsistsofseveral
sentences,therulesfortheidentificationofadiscoursetopicapply(6).Inthe
followingtext,thetermtopicwillrefertomovetopic,ifnotindicateddifferently.The
delimitationoftopicsisalsoamatterofdefiningthetopicalgranularity.Topicscanbe
understoodhierarchically.Inadesignconversation,theglobaltopicwouldbe:“What
istheproblem?”and“Whatisthebestsolutiontothisproblem?”.Fromtheglobal
topicdownwards,thelevelofdetailsincreases.Amoveisoftenboth:itcontributes
informationtoatopicandatthesametimeintroducesanewtopicatalevelofgreater
detail.However,ourvisualcodingmethoddoesnotconsiderhierarchicaldimensions.
Asubsequentmoveeitherrepresentsanewtopicornot.Weneedtofigureout
whether<topping>isanewtopicundertheparenttopic<cake>orifitcountsastopic
<cake>.Itcouldbearguedthateverymoveopensupanewtopicorallmovesare
connectingundertheumbrellaoftheglobaltopic.Thus,weareaddressingthis
granularityissuewithanequilibriumapproach.Everytopichastopicalspace“above”
thatismoreabstractandglobalaswellastopicalspace“underneath”thatismore
concrete.(8)illustratespossibledownwardandupwardcausationsoftopics.
(8) ++Tom’sbirthday|Tom’sfriendBob|…
+ gifts|otherguests|…
0 cake|flowers|…
 parts|flavor|…
 topping|filling|…
Thetopictneithercontributestothetopicalleveloftn1bymovingtheconversation
downwards,upwardsoritdoesnotshowanyrelation.Thegranularityissuecannow
beresolvedwiththefollowingdefinition.Iftnismoreconcrete,itispartoftn1.Inthis
IASDR2015Interplay|25November|Brisbane,Australia 5
casetnismovingtn1forward.Iftnismoreabstractorshowsnorelationtotn1,itisnot
partoftn1.Inthiscase,wedefinethattnisinterruptingtn1andcanbutnotmustrelate
toatopicprevioustotn1.Sofar,theserulesanddefinitionspresentedinsection3
allowtheassignmentoftopicstninmovetomoveanalysis.Theupcomingsection
willintroducepossibletransitionsstatesbetweentnandtn1.
4.MTopicsandTopicHandlingActivities
Whiledesigning,manypropertiesofthesametopicaretreatedseparatelyandin
relation.Forexample,differentfeaturesofanewproductcanbedesigned
independentlyfromoneanother(e.g.carchassisandsteeringwheel);howeverto
changeonefeaturecanaffectanotheroneand/oreventhewholenewproductconcept
(e.g.selfdriving).Inthefollowing,wewillexplainthepossiblerelationsbetweenthe
mtopicsintwosubsequentmovesandhowtheserelationscanbedefinedastopic
handlingactivities.Thedefinitionofthetopichandlingactivitiesistheprerequisiteto
translateconversationsintotopicthreads.Wesuggesttodistinguishbetweenthefour
topichandlingactivities:continuation,drift,jumpandintegration.
Continuation:Atopiciscontinuediftncarriesthesametopicalvalueastn1.
(9)Cont(mn1,mn)tn1==tn
Continuationmovessolidifyor“deepen”atopicbypickinguptheprevioustopicand
addingmoreconcreteinformation.Decisionmakingsequencesanddirectanswersto
questionsareexamplesofcontinuationmoves.Continuationshaveconvergent
tendenciesintermsoftopicvariety.
Drift:tnisdriftingifitdoesnotcontinuetn1butstillintersectswithtn1.
(10)Drift(mn1,mn)(tn1≠tn)^(tn1tn≠Ø)
Driftsstaywithintheboundariesoftheprevioustopicbutatthesametimetheyare
wideningit.Associationchainsareexamplesofdriftingtopics.Driftsingeneralhave
divergenttendenciesintermsoftopicvariety.
Jump:tnisajumpingmoveifitdoesnotcontinuetn1andiftheydonotsharethe
sameQUD.
(11)Jump(mn1,mn)(tn1≠tn)^(tn1tn=Ø)
Topicjumpsinterrupttheprevioustopicandintroduceanewtopic.Atopicjump
occurswhentherelationtothepreviousmovetopicisnottraceable.Jumpsingeneral
havedivergenttendenciesintermsoftopicvariety.
IASDR2015Interplay|25November|Brisbane,Australia 6
Integration:Thetopicactivityintegrationgetsassignedwhentnandtn1donotshare
thesametopic,butthetopicalvalueoftnrelateswithatopicmoveprevioustotn1.
(12)Integration(mn1,mn)(tn1≠tn)^(tn1tn=Ø)^(t.ttn≠Ø)
Integratingmovescombineaspectsofexistingtopics.Suchamovecouldbefor
exampleaquestionregardingtheconnectionofabicyclesaddletoaseatpost,given
thatthelatestmovewasabout<bicyclesaddle>andgiventhat<seatpost>hasbeen
topicprevioustothelatestmove.Integratingmoveshaveconvergenttendenciesin
termsoftopicvariety.Afterhavingdefinedthetopichandlingactivities,wesuggest
insection5avisualcodingapproachtorepresenttopicthreadsinconversations.
5.TheVisualRepresentationofTopicHandlingActivitiesand
IntroductionoftheCodingEnvironment
Thevisualcodingisperformedinatwodimensionallatticeasshowninfigure1.The
fourdifferenttopichandlingactivities(continuation,drift,jump,integration)are
representedbydrawingalinebetweentwomovesillustratingatopicthread(seered
linesinfigure1).
Figure1:Environmentforvisualcodingandrepresentationoftopicactivities
Acolumn(e.g.columnAinfig.1)representsonetopic(QUD)withacertaintopic
width.Thetopicwithisdependingonthenumberofmovesthatarecodedasdrifts.
Wecountthetopiccolumnsalphabeticallyandthetopicsubcolumnsnumerically.
Whiletestingthevisualcodingmethod,wefounditusefultoreservethecolumnA
forofftopicmoves,suchas“Whatarewegoingtohaveforlunch”,andcolumnB
fororganizationaltalk,suchas“Howmuchtimedowehaveuntillunch”.Thecolumn
1doesnotplayanactivepartregardingthecurrenttopicactivities,butthetoolis
IASDR2015Interplay|25November|Brisbane,Australia 7
capableofautomaticallyadjustingthetopicdepthintwodirections,whichcreatesa
greaterflexibilityforfurtherdevelopmentofthevisualcodingmethod.Therow
numberontherightsidecountslineardownandrepresentsthemovenumber.The
firstrowontheleftsidecontainsatimestampthatautomaticallyrecordsthetimea
movehasbeendrawn.Ingeneral,thethreadstructurewillgrowdownwardswith
everymoveofaconversation.Thecontinuationofatopicconnectstheoccurring
movewiththelatestmoveandisrepresentedbyastraightlinedownwards(e.g.A00
A01).Thetopicdriftconnectsamovewiththelastmoveandendsonecell
downwardsandonecelltotheright(e.g.A01A12).Atopicjumpmeansthe
discontinuationofthecurrenttopicthreadandopensanewtopiconecolumntothe
right.Itisrepresentedasastraightlinedownwardsinthenewtopiccolumn(e.g.B02
B03).Anintegrationmoveconnectstothelatestmoveandendsonecell
downwardsinthecolumnwherethemoveoftheintegratedtopichasendedbefore.
(e.g.B03A14).Weassume,thattherepresentationoftopicthreadsenables
intuitivecomprehensionofthecodingoutcome.Thiswouldbebeneficialfordesign
teamsanddesigneducatorstoinstantlyassesstopichandling.
6.TheTMSCodingTool
Tosupporttopicthreadcodingonalargescale,wedevelopedawebbasedtool(TMS
Tool,figure2).Thesoftwaredigitizestheprocessofcodingtopicthreadsonan
infinitecanvastoovercomethelimitedtopicdepthand–widthofapapertemplate.
Figure2:InterfaceoftheTMSTool.
TheHTML5canvaselementatthecenteroftheapphasbeenmadeinteractivewith
JavaScript.Thiscanvasenablestodraganddroptopicthreads,accordingtothe
definitionabove(Section5).Theinterfaceisresponsivetodifferentscreensizesand
thetouchfunctionalityandresponsivenessisidealfortheuseontabletcomputers.We
IASDR2015Interplay|25November|Brisbane,Australia 8
supposethatsuchdevicesprovideagoodcompromisebetweenusabilityforthe
analystandunobtrusivenessregardingtheobservedteam.Moreover,basedonfurther
annotations,thesoftwareisabletosimulateaconversationwith/using?asimplified
model.Therefore,thesimulationassumesthatthecurrentmovedependsonlyonthe
previousmove(cf.MarkovAssumption,Markov,1954).Thismodelcanbedefined
bythefollowingprobabilities:
(13) Moves={Continuation,Jump,Drift,Integration}
p(move1),move1Moves
p(move1|move2),move1,move2Moves
Usingtheprobabilitiesabove,theprobabilityofthecurrentstatecanbecomputed
whenknowingtheprobabilityofthestatebefore.Accordingtotheprobability,anew
randomcurrentstateiscomputed.
7.LimitationsandFutureWork
Insection3wehaveshownthattopicassignmentcontainsintuitiveinferencetoa
certainextend.Thiswouldleadtoinaccuracyofthecodingoutcome.Inthefuture,we
wanttotesttheintercoderreliabilityofTMSbyusingdistancemeasuresforstring
comparison.Alimitationofthecurrentmethodistheinfinitetopicwidth.Atthe
currentstateofthemethod,itcouldbemisleadingthatlongtopicdriftsproduceone
threadinonecolumnthatactuallyconsistsofseveraltopicvalues.Wewanttocontain
thisissuebydefiningthresholdrulestotransferasequenceoftopicdriftstoatopic
jump.Topichandlingmainlyfocusesonverbalaspectsofteaminteractionwhile
meaningmakinginconversationsishighlyinfluencedbynonverbalcommunication
spatialrelationships(gesturesandpositionsofteammembers).Thus,weconsider
crossreferencingTMStootherteaminteractionmeasures.Theunderlyingaimofthis
researchistheanalysisofresultingtopicalstructurestofindquantitativeevidencefor
ourhypothesisthatwecallTopicEmergence(TE).
8.ConclusionandTopicEmergence
WehavedevelopedTMStocapturingthetopicalstructureofconversationsandto
detectcoherenceanddiscontinuityindiscourse.Inadditionwesuggestavisual
codingapproachandpresenttheTMStooltotranslatetopichandlingactivitiesinto
topicthreads.TheoutcomeofcodingTMSenablesboth,instantassessment,and
detailedanalysis.Basedontheinstantcomprehensionofthecodingoutcome,
innovationteamsandeducatorsareabletotreatthetopicthreadpatternsasa
referencesystemtoactivelyreflectupontheirteamwork.Thestructuredandindepth
analysisoflargescaletopicthreadstructuresprovidesabetterunderstandingofhow
topicalignmentcontributestothedesignoutcome.RittelsDesignRationaleconcept
(Rittel,inProtzen,&Harris,2010)isdefiningthedesignprocessasarathercoherent
pathofissues,decisionsandreasons.Byanalyzingtopicalstructures,wewillbeable
toarguethatdesigningisalsoaprocessofinterruptionandjumpsatdifferentlevels
IASDR2015Interplay|25November|Brisbane,Australia 9
oftopicalhierarchy.Inthiscasethedesiredoutcome,thedesignofsomething
completelynew,canbeunderstoodasanewentitythatincludespropertieswhichare
notderivablefromthesinglepropertiesthatledtoit.WecallthismodelTopic
Emergence(TE).Itlinkstopicswiththeconceptofemergence.Wehypothesizethat
topicalstructuresinconversationsareemergent,whichleadstohigherorderoutcome
intheformofnewideas.Thusdesignteamswouldneedtotreatacriticalmassof
issuesondifferentlevelsoftopicalhierarchy.Theunderlyingphenomenonthatledto
ourhypothesisisthatideasareinmanywaysmorethantheresultofcombining
formertopicsandtheirproperties.FindingevidenceforTEandelaboratingonit,will
eventuallyprovidesabetterunderstandingoftherequisitestoproducenewideas.
9.Acknowledgement
WegratefullyacknowledgethevariouswaysinwhichtheHPIStanfordDesign
ThinkingResearchProgramhasenabledthisresearch.
10.References
Cross,N.(2011).Designthinking:Understandinghowdesignersthinkandwork.
BergPublishers
Goldschmidt,G(1990).Linkography:assessingdesignproductivity,inRTrappl(ed)
Cyberbeticsandsystem’90WorldScientific,Singapore,(pp291298.)
Goldschmidt,G.(2014).Linkography–UnfoldingtheDesignProcess.TheMIT
Press;1.edition
Grosz,B.J,Joshi,A.K.,&Weinstein,S.(1994).Centering:AFrameworkfor
ModelingtheLocalCoherenceOfDiscourse.TechnicalReport,Universityof
Pennsylvania,DepartmentofComputerandInformationScience.
Grosz,B.J,Joshi,A.K.,&Weinstein,S.(1983).Providingaunifiedaccountof
definitenounphrasesindiscourse.InProceedingsofthe21stannualmeetingon
AssociationforComputationalLinguistics(pp.4450).Associationfor
ComputationalLinguistics.
Markov,A.A.(1954).TheoryofAlgorithms.[TranslatedbyJacquesJ.SchorrKon
andPSTstaff]ImprintMoscow,AcademyofSciencesoftheUSSR
Plattner,H.,Meinel,C.,andWeinberg,U.(2009).DesignThinkingInnovation
lernenIdeenweltenöffnen,miWirtschaftsbuch,FinanzbuchVerlagGmbH
ProtzenJ.P.andHarrisD.J.(2010).TheUniverseofDesign.HorstRittelsTheories
ofDesignandPlanning(RoutledgeChapman&Hall)
Rittel,H.(1987).Thereasoningofdesigners,InternationalCongressonPlanningand
DesignTheoryinBoston,August1987
IASDR2015Interplay|25November|Brisbane,Australia 10
Roberts,C.(1996).InformationStructureindiscourse:Towardsanintegratedformal
theoryofpragmatics.InJ.H.YoonandA.Kathol,editors,OSUWorkingPapersin
Linguistics49:PapersinSemantics
Sonalkar,N.(2012).AVisualRepresentationtocharacterizemomenttomoment
conceptgenerationthroughinterpersonalinteractionsinengineeringdesignteams.
PhDDissertation,StanfordUniversity
vanDijk,T.A.(1977).SentenceTopicanddiscoursetopic.PapersinSlavic
Philology,1,(4961.)
vanDijk,T.A.(2008).Discourseandcontext.ASociocognitiveApproach.
Cambridge.
11.Biographies
AxelMenning
AxelMenningisPhDcandidateintheHPIStanfordDesignThinkingResearch
ProgramandresearchassistantattheHassoPlattnerInstituteSchoolofDesign
ThinkinginPotsdam,Germany.Heholdsadiplomainculturalmanagement.
AndreaScheer
AndreaScheerisPhDcandidateintheHPIStanfordDesignThinkingResearch
ProgramandtheUniversityofPotsdam,Germany.SheholdsaMasterdegreein
educationandlinguistics.
BenjaminHeinzMeier
BenjaminHeinzMeierhasaBachelorDegreeinComputationalVisualisticsfromthe
OttovonGuerickeUniversityMagdeburg,GermanyandstudiesITSystems
EngineeringattheHassoPlattnerInstitute,UniversityofPotsdaminPotsdam,
Germany.HeisaresearchassistantintheHPIStanfordDesignThinkingResearch
Programwitharesearchfocusisthedevelopmentofmathematicalmodelsfordesign
conversations.
ClaudiaNicolai
Dr.ClaudiaNicolaiisaprincipalinvestigatoroftheHPIStanfordDesignThinking
ResearchProgram.SheistheCoHeadandAcademicDirectoroftheHPISchoolof
DesignThinkinginPotsdam,GermanyandvisitingprofessorattheUniversityofArts
BerlinandtheElisavaSchoolofDesignandEngineeringinBarcelona/Spain.She
holdsMasterdegreesinBusinessAdministration,EconomicsandSocialScienceand
receivedherPh.D.inStrategicManagement.
  • Chapter
    The purpose of this chapter is to explore the relation between coherence and creativity in design conversations of innovation teams. Low coherent segments in a conversation can be understood as the linguistic equivalent of shifts of the focus of attention while designing. Focus shifts have a positive influence on ideational productivity. We therefore reason that low coherent speaker turns function as creative stimuli in team conversations. How this works in practice we illustrate with a case study of an innovation team observed in the wild.
  • Chapter
    This paper presents a mixed computational and manual procedure to systematically probe for distinct low coherent turns in design conversations. Existing studies indicate that focus shifts and their linguistic equivalent, low coherent turns, positively influence ideational productivity. Because coherence is a versatile phenomenon, we contribute a classification of low coherent turns to enable future research to further investigate the influence of low coherence turns on creativity. We analyze the DTRS11 corpus, comprising 16 sessions of design conversation that contain 9830 sentences, with automated Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) to identify potential low coherent turns. We argue that an additional manual coherence analysis with the Topic Markup Scheme (TMS) further qualifies preselected turns. This mixed method procedure constitutes a promising pragmatic instrument for locating low coherent turns in large corpora. 297 distinct low coherent turns out of a total amount of 6072 turns were successfully retained. The selected data contains twice as much turns that shift the focus of attention within an existing design issue as turns that interrupt and introduce a new design issue. Based on an interpretative analysis of low coherent turns, we suggest distinguishing between turns that interrupt the focus of attention and turns that shift the focus of attention through either diversifying, reframing, or selective tendencies.
  • Chapter
    The focus of this book chapter is the introduction of two complementary instruments, the Topic Markup Scheme (TMS) and the Knowledge Handling Notation (KHN) to analyze design conversations. Both instruments will be applied to a design conversation sample. TMS offers a diagnostic procedure that is capable of describing the topical structure of a conversation and its move-to-move coherence. KHN describes on the move-to-move level how innovation teams generate and share knowledge. The output of both instruments, in the form of strings of symbols can be used for sequence analysis and pattern detection of team dynamics. Together, the outcomes nurture the understanding of knowledge creation in and through design conversations in innovation teams.
  • Chapter
    The Design Thinking methodology is one example of a design methodology that supports the creation of innovative products or services. For that purpose, the Design Thinking methodology suggests a repertoire of design phases, design activities, and design methods that can be used to solve wicked problems in terms of innovative solutions. However, since the Design Thinking methodology does not prescribe any order of design phases, activities, and methods, applications of design phases, activities, and methods lead to different shapes of the Design Thinking methodology in practice. We hypothesize that these shapes of Design Thinking at work consist of different characteristics depending on the kind of design project that has been conducted. Understanding these characteristics, their influence on the design flow itself, as well as their impact on the outcome of the design project is of major interest to managers, innovators, and researchers. In this chapter, we report on the result of a case study that we conducted to investigate different shapes of the Design Thinking methodology in practice. As a result of our case study, we conclude that different shapes of Design Thinking methodologies exist in practice. We describe the identified characteristics and their purpose.
  • Book
    Full-text available
    The MIT Press BOOK NEWS This book presents linkography, a method for the notation and analysis of the design process. Developed by Gabriela Goldschmidt in an attempt to clarify designing, linkography documents how designers think, generate ideas, put them to the test, and combine them into something meaningful. With linkography, Goldschmidt shows that there is a logic to the creative process—that it is not, as is often supposed, pure magic. Linkography draws on design practice, protocol analysis, and insights from cognitive psychology. Goldschmidt argues that the generation of ideas (and their inspection and adjustment) evolves over a large number of small steps, which she terms " design moves ". These combine in a network of moves, and the patterns of links in the networks manifest a " good fit, " or congruence, among the ideas. Goldschmidt explains what parts of the design process can be observed and measured in a linkograph, describing its features and notation conventions. The most significant elements in a linkograph are " critical moves " , which are particularly rich in links. Goldschmidt presents studies that show the importance of critical moves in design thinking; describes cases that demonstrate linkog-raphy's effectiveness in studying the creative process in design (focusing on the good fit); and offers thirteen linko-graphic studies conducted by other researchers that show the potential of linkography in design thinking research and beyond. Linkography is the first book-length treatment of an approach to design thinking that has already proved influential in the field. Gabriela Goldschmidt is Professor Emeritus in the Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning at Technion-Israel Institute of Technology. " Linkography is already one of the most influential, elegant, and insightful design research methods. Linkography takes an in-depth and critical look into this remarkable visual language to understand design as a mode of thought. Goldschmidt brings the research method she invented together with the latest data from design research to elucidate the thinking part of design thinking. " —Andy Dong, Professor of Engineering, the University of Sydney; author of The Language of Design " Design thinking is one of the best examples of practical creativity. The imagination is at work, but there are concrete and useful results in the designs. Linkography confirms that Goldschmidt has contributed mightily towards a sound understanding of design. Her ideas about networks and critical moves will appeal to anyone interested in the dynamic processes underlying design and creativity. " —Mark A. Runco, E. Paul Torrance Professor of Creativity Studies, University of Georgia, Athens; editor of Creativity Research Journal " This compact, important book offers the reader the key to enter the world of linkography. It will have a real impact on design research by making fine-grained research into how designers think accessible to all. In Linkography, Gabriela Goldschmidt shows that after decades of borrowing from other academic disciplines, design research has now matured to the point where it is developing research methods relevant to other fields. " —Kees Dorst, Professor of Design Innovation,
  • Article
    Full-text available
    A framework for pragmatic analysis is proposed which treats discourse as a game, with context as a scoreboard organized around the questions under discussion by the interlocutors. The framework is intended to be coordinated with a dynamic compositional semantics. Accordingly, the context of utterance is modeled as a tuple of different types of information, and the questions therein — modeled, as is usual in formal semantics, as alternative sets of propositions — constrain the felicitous flow of discourse. A requirement of Relevance is satisfied by an utterance (whether an assertion, a question or a suggestion) iff it addresses the question under discussion. Finally, it is argued that the prosodic focus of an utterance canonically serves to reflect the question under discussion (at least in English), placing additional constraints on felicity in context. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6 BibTeX info
  • Conference Paper
    Full-text available
    This paper focuses on particular phenomena of this sort-the use of various referring expressions such as def'mite noun phrases and pronouns-and examines their interaction with mechanisms used to maintain discourse coherence
  • Article
    Full-text available
    This paper concerns relationships among focus of attention, choice of referring expression, and perceived coherence of utterances within a discourse segment. It presents a framework and initial theory of centering intended to model the local component of attentional state. The paper examines interactions between local coherence and choice of referring expressions; it argues that differences in coherence correspond in part to the inference demands made by different types of referring expressions, given a particular attentional state. It demonstrates that the attentional state properties modeled by centering can account for these differences
  • Theory of Algorithms
    • A A H Markov
    • C Meinel
    • U Weinberg
    Markov, A. A. (1954). Theory of Algorithms. [Translated by Jacques J. Schorr­Kon and PST staff] Imprint Moscow, Academy of Sciences of the USSR Plattner, H., Meinel, C., and Weinberg, U. (2009). Design Thinking ­ Innovation lernen ­ Ideenwelten öffnen, mi­Wirtschaftsbuch, Finanzbuch Verlag GmbH
  • The Universe of Design
    • J P Protzen
    • D J Harris
    Protzen J.P. and Harris D. J. (2010). The Universe of Design. Horst Rittels Theories of Design and Planning (Routledge Chapman & Hall)
  • Information Structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics A Visual Representation to characterize moment­to­moment concept generation through interpersonal interactions in engineering design teams. PhD Dissertation Sentence Topic and discourse topic Discourse and context
    • C Roberts
    Roberts, C. (1996). Information Structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In J.H. Yoon and A. Kathol, editors, OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 49: Papers in Semantics Sonalkar, N. (2012). A Visual Representation to characterize moment­to­moment concept generation through interpersonal interactions in engineering design teams. PhD Dissertation, Stanford University van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Sentence Topic and discourse topic. Papers in Slavic Philology, 1, (49‐61.) van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and context. A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge.