Institut for Forretningsudvikling og Teknologi

Differences in thinking styles across professionals with different academic backgrounds when developing a product

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift/Konferencebidrag i tidsskrift /Bidrag til avisTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  • Leandro Miletto Tonetto, Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos
  • ,
  • Priscila G. Brust-Renck, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
  • ,
  • Stanley Ruecker, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
  • ,
  • Flavio S. Fogliatto, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
  • ,
  • Diego Augusto de Jesus Pacheco

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.

TidsskriftArchitectural Engineering and Design Management
Sider (fra-til)3-16
Antal sider14
StatusUdgivet - 2021
Eksternt udgivetJa

Se relationer på Aarhus Universitet Citationsformater

ID: 208716700