Comparing human and cognitive assistant facilitated brainstorming sessions
The rapid digitalization of the world has affected engineering and design in a variety of ways, including the introduction of new computer-aided ideation tools. Cognitive assistants (CA), an increasingly common digital technology, use natural-language processing and artificial intelligence to provid...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of engineering design 2022-04, Vol.33 (4), p.259-283 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 283 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 259 |
container_title | Journal of engineering design |
container_volume | 33 |
creator | Maier, Torsten Soria Zurita, Nicolas F. Starkey, Elizabeth Spillane, Daniel McComb, Christopher Menold, Jessica |
description | The rapid digitalization of the world has affected engineering and design in a variety of ways, including the introduction of new computer-aided ideation tools. Cognitive assistants (CA), an increasingly common digital technology, use natural-language processing and artificial intelligence to provide computational support. Because CAs are capable of emulating humans in some tasks, they may be suited to support ideation activities when trained coaches or facilitators are not available. However, the effects and perception of CA-facilitated ideation are not fully understood. This study compared co-located brainstorming groups facilitated by human facilitators and a CA facilitator. We found that human facilitation was associated with the blocks/interruptions state because they used these moments to initiate facilitation; conversely, cognitive assistant facilitation was associated with the deviations and silence state. Human facilitation was also found to produce a more equal distribution of speaking time. Finally, post-task interviews showed that participants became frustrated due to the lack of affordances to indicate the status and functionality of the device. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1080/09544828.2022.2032623 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2644321678</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2644321678</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-f5d694f2dc37bec86cba21f4290738d0f00fa55cc513c63ab2c567884f26d6d23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMoWKs_QVjwvDUfm2x6U4qfFLzoOcwmm5qyTWqSKv33Zmm9epm5PM87zIvQNcEzgiW-xXPeNJLKGcWUlsGooOwETUgjRE0ka0_RZGTqETpHFymtMS4i5RP0ugibLUTnV9XnbgO-Am8qHVbeZffdV5CSSxl8rixoN7gMuTdVF8H5lEPcjF7qCxR8ukRnFobUXx33FH08Prwvnuvl29PL4n5Za8Zkri03Yt5YajRru15LoTugxDZ0jlsmDbYYW-Bca06YFgw6qrlopSyKMMJQNkU3h9xtDF-7PmW1Drvoy0lFRdMwSgpeKH6gdAwpxd6qbXQbiHtFsBprU3-1qbE2dayteHcHz3lbHoSfEAejMuyHEG0Er11S7P-IXxw8dM8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2644321678</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparing human and cognitive assistant facilitated brainstorming sessions</title><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Complete</source><creator>Maier, Torsten ; Soria Zurita, Nicolas F. ; Starkey, Elizabeth ; Spillane, Daniel ; McComb, Christopher ; Menold, Jessica</creator><creatorcontrib>Maier, Torsten ; Soria Zurita, Nicolas F. ; Starkey, Elizabeth ; Spillane, Daniel ; McComb, Christopher ; Menold, Jessica</creatorcontrib><description>The rapid digitalization of the world has affected engineering and design in a variety of ways, including the introduction of new computer-aided ideation tools. Cognitive assistants (CA), an increasingly common digital technology, use natural-language processing and artificial intelligence to provide computational support. Because CAs are capable of emulating humans in some tasks, they may be suited to support ideation activities when trained coaches or facilitators are not available. However, the effects and perception of CA-facilitated ideation are not fully understood. This study compared co-located brainstorming groups facilitated by human facilitators and a CA facilitator. We found that human facilitation was associated with the blocks/interruptions state because they used these moments to initiate facilitation; conversely, cognitive assistant facilitation was associated with the deviations and silence state. Human facilitation was also found to produce a more equal distribution of speaking time. Finally, post-task interviews showed that participants became frustrated due to the lack of affordances to indicate the status and functionality of the device.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0954-4828</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1466-1837</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/09544828.2022.2032623</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Abingdon: Taylor & Francis</publisher><subject>Artificial intelligence ; brainstorming ; Cognitive assistant ; Digitization ; facilitation ; Hidden Markov model ; Natural language processing</subject><ispartof>Journal of engineering design, 2022-04, Vol.33 (4), p.259-283</ispartof><rights>2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 2022</rights><rights>2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-f5d694f2dc37bec86cba21f4290738d0f00fa55cc513c63ab2c567884f26d6d23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-f5d694f2dc37bec86cba21f4290738d0f00fa55cc513c63ab2c567884f26d6d23</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-9775-8736</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Maier, Torsten</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Soria Zurita, Nicolas F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Starkey, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spillane, Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McComb, Christopher</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Menold, Jessica</creatorcontrib><title>Comparing human and cognitive assistant facilitated brainstorming sessions</title><title>Journal of engineering design</title><description>The rapid digitalization of the world has affected engineering and design in a variety of ways, including the introduction of new computer-aided ideation tools. Cognitive assistants (CA), an increasingly common digital technology, use natural-language processing and artificial intelligence to provide computational support. Because CAs are capable of emulating humans in some tasks, they may be suited to support ideation activities when trained coaches or facilitators are not available. However, the effects and perception of CA-facilitated ideation are not fully understood. This study compared co-located brainstorming groups facilitated by human facilitators and a CA facilitator. We found that human facilitation was associated with the blocks/interruptions state because they used these moments to initiate facilitation; conversely, cognitive assistant facilitation was associated with the deviations and silence state. Human facilitation was also found to produce a more equal distribution of speaking time. Finally, post-task interviews showed that participants became frustrated due to the lack of affordances to indicate the status and functionality of the device.</description><subject>Artificial intelligence</subject><subject>brainstorming</subject><subject>Cognitive assistant</subject><subject>Digitization</subject><subject>facilitation</subject><subject>Hidden Markov model</subject><subject>Natural language processing</subject><issn>0954-4828</issn><issn>1466-1837</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMoWKs_QVjwvDUfm2x6U4qfFLzoOcwmm5qyTWqSKv33Zmm9epm5PM87zIvQNcEzgiW-xXPeNJLKGcWUlsGooOwETUgjRE0ka0_RZGTqETpHFymtMS4i5RP0ugibLUTnV9XnbgO-Am8qHVbeZffdV5CSSxl8rixoN7gMuTdVF8H5lEPcjF7qCxR8ukRnFobUXx33FH08Prwvnuvl29PL4n5Za8Zkri03Yt5YajRru15LoTugxDZ0jlsmDbYYW-Bca06YFgw6qrlopSyKMMJQNkU3h9xtDF-7PmW1Drvoy0lFRdMwSgpeKH6gdAwpxd6qbXQbiHtFsBprU3-1qbE2dayteHcHz3lbHoSfEAejMuyHEG0Er11S7P-IXxw8dM8</recordid><startdate>20220403</startdate><enddate>20220403</enddate><creator>Maier, Torsten</creator><creator>Soria Zurita, Nicolas F.</creator><creator>Starkey, Elizabeth</creator><creator>Spillane, Daniel</creator><creator>McComb, Christopher</creator><creator>Menold, Jessica</creator><general>Taylor & Francis</general><general>Taylor & Francis Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9775-8736</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220403</creationdate><title>Comparing human and cognitive assistant facilitated brainstorming sessions</title><author>Maier, Torsten ; Soria Zurita, Nicolas F. ; Starkey, Elizabeth ; Spillane, Daniel ; McComb, Christopher ; Menold, Jessica</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-f5d694f2dc37bec86cba21f4290738d0f00fa55cc513c63ab2c567884f26d6d23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Artificial intelligence</topic><topic>brainstorming</topic><topic>Cognitive assistant</topic><topic>Digitization</topic><topic>facilitation</topic><topic>Hidden Markov model</topic><topic>Natural language processing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Maier, Torsten</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Soria Zurita, Nicolas F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Starkey, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spillane, Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McComb, Christopher</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Menold, Jessica</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><jtitle>Journal of engineering design</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Maier, Torsten</au><au>Soria Zurita, Nicolas F.</au><au>Starkey, Elizabeth</au><au>Spillane, Daniel</au><au>McComb, Christopher</au><au>Menold, Jessica</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparing human and cognitive assistant facilitated brainstorming sessions</atitle><jtitle>Journal of engineering design</jtitle><date>2022-04-03</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>259</spage><epage>283</epage><pages>259-283</pages><issn>0954-4828</issn><eissn>1466-1837</eissn><abstract>The rapid digitalization of the world has affected engineering and design in a variety of ways, including the introduction of new computer-aided ideation tools. Cognitive assistants (CA), an increasingly common digital technology, use natural-language processing and artificial intelligence to provide computational support. Because CAs are capable of emulating humans in some tasks, they may be suited to support ideation activities when trained coaches or facilitators are not available. However, the effects and perception of CA-facilitated ideation are not fully understood. This study compared co-located brainstorming groups facilitated by human facilitators and a CA facilitator. We found that human facilitation was associated with the blocks/interruptions state because they used these moments to initiate facilitation; conversely, cognitive assistant facilitation was associated with the deviations and silence state. Human facilitation was also found to produce a more equal distribution of speaking time. Finally, post-task interviews showed that participants became frustrated due to the lack of affordances to indicate the status and functionality of the device.</abstract><cop>Abingdon</cop><pub>Taylor & Francis</pub><doi>10.1080/09544828.2022.2032623</doi><tpages>25</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9775-8736</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0954-4828 |
ispartof | Journal of engineering design, 2022-04, Vol.33 (4), p.259-283 |
issn | 0954-4828 1466-1837 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2644321678 |
source | EBSCOhost Business Source Complete |
subjects | Artificial intelligence brainstorming Cognitive assistant Digitization facilitation Hidden Markov model Natural language processing |
title | Comparing human and cognitive assistant facilitated brainstorming sessions |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T09%3A15%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparing%20human%20and%20cognitive%20assistant%20facilitated%20brainstorming%20sessions&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20engineering%20design&rft.au=Maier,%20Torsten&rft.date=2022-04-03&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=259&rft.epage=283&rft.pages=259-283&rft.issn=0954-4828&rft.eissn=1466-1837&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/09544828.2022.2032623&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2644321678%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2644321678&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |