Research Papers

Role of Sunk Cost in Engineering Idea Generation: An Experimental Investigation

[+] Author and Article Information
Vimal K. Viswanathan

Post-doctoral Research Associate
e-mail: v.viswanathan@gatech.edu

Julie S. Linsey

Assistant Professor
e-mail: julie.linsey@me.gatech.edu
Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, GA 30318

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Design Theory and Methodology Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received December 4, 2012; final manuscript received August 14, 2013; published online September 18, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Janis Terpenny.

J. Mech. Des 135(12), 121002 (Sep 18, 2013) (12 pages) Paper No: MD-12-1597; doi: 10.1115/1.4025290 History: Received December 04, 2012; Revised August 14, 2013

Researchers and design practitioners advocate building physical models of ideas at early stages of the design process. Still, the cognitive effects of physical models remain largely unknown. Some studies show that physical models possess the potential to facilitate the generation of high quality ideas. Conversely, other studies demonstrate that physical models can lead to design fixation. A prior controlled study by the authors failed to detect fixation due to early stage physical models. Based upon these conflicting results, this study hypothesizes that the fixation observed in prior studies can be explained by the Sunk Cost Effect. The Sunk Cost Effect pertains to an individual's reluctance to choose a different path of action once he/she invests a significant cost (money, time, or effort). According to this theory, as designers spend more time, money or effort in building physical models, they tend to generate ideas with lower novelty and variety. The prior observational studies use complicated design problems with higher costs compared to the controlled study, possibly explaining the difference in results. This study also hypothesizes that physical models supplement designers' erroneous mental models. The authors investigate these hypotheses through a controlled, between-subject experiment with five conditions: Sketching Only, Metal Building (low time cost), Plastic Building (high time cost), Metal Constrained Sketching, and Plastic Constrained Sketching. In each condition, subjects construct their ideas using materials specified by the name of the condition. The constrained sketching conditions assist in determining if participants tend to limit their ideas to only ones that can be built with given materials even though they are instructed to write down all ideas. The results confirm that the sunk cost of building plays a vital role in the observed fixation; thus, physical models do not inherently cause fixation. Moreover, results also show that physical models supplement designers' erroneous mental models, leading to higher quality ideas. To minimize sunk costs very early in the design process, models should be built with materials requiring minimal time, cost, and effort for the designers.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Topics: Metals , Design
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Andersson, P., 1994, “Early Design Phases and Their Role in Designing for Quality,” J. Eng. Des., 5(4), pp. 283–298. [CrossRef]
Fish, J., 2004, “Cognitive Catalysis: Sketches for a Time-Lagged Brain,” Design Representation, G.Goldschmidt and W. L.Porter, ed., Springer, London, United Kingdom.
Goldschmidt, G., and Smolkov, M., 2006, “Variances in the Impact of Visual Stimuli on Design Problem Solving Performance,” Des. Stud., 27(5), pp. 549–569. [CrossRef]
Kelley, T., and Littman, J., 2001, The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity From Ideo, America's Leading Design Firm, Harper Collins Business, New York.
Ferguson, E. S., 1994, Engineering and the Mind's Eye, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Houde, S., and Hill, C., 1997, “What do Prototypes Prototype?,” Handbook of humanecomputer interaction, M.Helander, T.Landauer, and P.Prabhu, ed., Amsterdam, Elsevier Science, pp. 367–381.
Mckim, R. H., 1972, Experiences in Visual Thinking, PWS Publishing Company, Boston.
Kiriyama, T., and Yamamoto, T., 1998, “Strategic Knowledge Acquisition: A Case Study of Learning Through Prototyping,” Knowl. Based Syst., 11(7–8), pp. 399–404. [CrossRef]
Viswanathan, V. K., and Linsey, J., 2012, “Physical Models and Design Thinking: A Study of Functionality, Novelty and Variety of Ideas,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 134(9), p. 091004. [CrossRef]
Christensen, B. T., and Schunn, C. D., 2007, “The Relationship of Analogical Distance to Analogical Function and Pre-Inventive Structure: The Case of Engineering Design,” Memory & Cognition, 35(1), pp. 29–38. [CrossRef]
Arkes, H. R., and Blumer, C., 1985, “The Psychology of Sunk Cost,” Org. Behav. Human Decis. Process., 35(1), pp. 124–140. [CrossRef]
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A., 1979, “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk,” Econometrica, 47(2), pp. 263–291. [CrossRef]
Badke-Schaub, P., Neumann, A., Lauche, K., and Mohammed, S., 2007, “Mental Models in Design Teams: A Valid Approach to Performance in Design Collaboration?,” CoDesign, 3(1), pp. 5–20. [CrossRef]
Gentner, D., and Stevens, A., 1983, Mental Models, Lawrence Erlbaum, NJ.
Hutchins, E., and Lintern, G., 1995, Cognition in the Wild, MIT press, Cambridge, MA.
Kempton, W., 1986, “Two Theories of Home Heat Control,” Cogn. Sci., 10(1), pp. 75–90. [CrossRef]
Goldschmidt, G., 2007, “To See Eye to Eye: The Role of Visual Representations in Building Shared Mental Models in Design Teams,” CoDesign, 3(1), pp. 43–50. [CrossRef]
Mcmohan, C. A., 1994, “Observations on Modes of Incremental Change in Design,” J. Eng. Des., 5(3), pp. 195–209. [CrossRef]
Lidwell, W., Holden, K., and Butler, J., 2003, Universal Principles of Design, Rock Port Publishers, MA.
Carlile, P. R., 2002, “A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development,” Org. Sci., 13(4), pp. 442–455. [CrossRef]
Boujut, J. F., and Blanco, E., 2003, “Intermediary Objects as a Means to Foster Co-Operation in Engineering Design,” Comput. Support Cooperative Work (CSCW), 12(2), pp. 205–219. [CrossRef]
Horton, G. I., and Radcliffe, D. F., 1995, “Nature of Rapid Proof-of-Concept Prototyping,” J. Eng. Des., 6(1), pp. 3–16. [CrossRef]
Raucent, B., and Johnson, D., 1997, “Linking Design and Simulation: A Student Project,” J. Eng. Des., 8(1), pp. 19–31. [CrossRef]
Ward, A., Liker, J. K., Cristiano, J. J., and Sobek, D. K., 1995, “The Second Toyota Paradox: How Delaying Decisions Can Make Better Cars Faster,” Sloan Manage. Rev., 36, pp. 43–43. [CrossRef]
Henderson, K., 1999, On Line and on Paper: Visual Representations, Visual Culture, and Computer Graphics in Design Engineering, The MIT Press, London.
Andreasen, M. M., and Hein, L., 1987, Integrated Product Development, IFS Publications, UK.
Bucciarelli, L. L., 1994, Designing Engineers, MIT Press, London.
Faithfull, P., Ball, R., and Jones, R., 2001, “An Investigation into the Use of Hardware-in-the-Loop Simulation With a Scaled Physical Prototype as an Aid to Design,” J. Eng. Des., 12(3), pp. 231–243. [CrossRef]
Baxter, M., 1995, Product Design: Practical Methods for the Systematic Development of New Products, Stanley Thornes Ltd., United Kingdom.
Buur, J., and Andreasen, M. M., 1989, “Design Models in Mechatronic Product Development,” Des. Stud., 10(3), pp. 155–162. [CrossRef]
Yang, M. C., 2005, “A Study of Prototypes, Design Activity, and Design Outcome,” Des. Stud., 26(6), pp. 649–669. [CrossRef]
Vidal, R., Mulet, E., and Gómez-Senent, E., 2004, “Effectiveness of the Means of Expression in Creative Problem-Solving in Design Groups,” J. Eng. Des., 15(3), pp. 285–298. [CrossRef]
Youmans, R. J., 2011, “The Effects of Physical Prototyping and Group Work on the Reduction of Design Fixation,” Des. Stud., 32(2), pp. 115–138. [CrossRef]
Jansson, D., and Smith, S., 1991, “Design Fixation,” Des. Stud., 12(1), pp. 3–11. [CrossRef]
Ward, T., 1998, “Analogical Distance and Purpose in Creative Thought: Mental Leaps Versus Mental Hops,” Advances in Analogy Research: Integration of Theory and Data from the Cognitive, Computational and Neural Sciences, K. J.Holyoak, D.Gentner, and B. N.Kokinov, ed., Bulgaria: New Bulgarian University Press.
Linsey, J. S., Tseng, I., Fu, K., Cagan, J., Wood, K. L., and Schunn, C., 2010, “A Study of Design Fixation, Its Mitigation and Perception in Engineering Design Faculty,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 132(4), p. 041003. [CrossRef]
Ward, T. B., 1994, “Structured Imagination: The Role of Category Structure in Exemplar Generation,” Cogn. Psychol., 27(1), pp. 1–40. [CrossRef]
Cardoso, C., and Badke-Schaub, P., 2011, “The Influence of Different Pictorial Representations During Idea Generation,” J. Creat. Behav., 45(2), pp. 130–146. [CrossRef]
Purcell, A., and Gero, J., 1992, “Effects of Examples on the Results of a Design Activity,” Knowl. Based Syst., 5(1), pp. 82–91. [CrossRef]
Purcell, A., and Gero, J., 1996, “Design and Other Types of Fixation,” Des. Stud., 17(4), pp. 363–383. [CrossRef]
Chrysikou, E. G., and Weisberg, R. W., 2005, “Following the Wrong Footsteps: Fixation Effects of Pictorial Examples in a Design Problem-Solving Task,” J. Exp. Psychol., 31(5), pp. 1134–1148. [CrossRef]
Perttula, M., and Sipilä, P., 2007, “The Idea Exposure Paradigm in Design Idea Generation,” J. Eng. Des., 18(1), pp. 93–102. [CrossRef]
Dugosh, L. K., and Paulus, P. B., 2005, “Cognitive and Social Comparison Processes in Brainstorming,” J. Exp. Soc. Psychol., 41(3), pp. 313–320. [CrossRef]
Ho, C. H., 2001, “Some Phenomena of Problem Decomposition Strategy for Design Thinking: Differences Between Novices and Experts,” Des. Stud., 22(1), pp. 27–45. [CrossRef]
Restrepo, J., and Christiaans, H., 2004, “Problem Structuring and Information Access in Design,” J. Des. Res., 4(2), pp. 1551–1569. [CrossRef]
Petroski, H., 1998, Invention by Design: How Engineers Get From Thought to Thing, Harvard University Press, pp. 8–42.
Keeney, R. L., and Raiffa, H., 1993, Decisions With Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, Cambridge University, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Holcomb, J. H., and Evans, D. A., 1987, “The Effect of Sunk Costs on Uncertain Decisions in Experimental Markets,” J. Behav. Econom., 16(3), pp. 59–66. [CrossRef]
Clark-Carter, D., 1997, Doing Quantitative Psychological Research: From Design to Report, Psychology Press/Erlbaum, United Kingdom.
Tinsley, H., and Weiss, D., 2000, “Interrater Reliability and Agreement,” Handbook of Multivariate Statistics and Mathemetical Modeling, edited by H.Tinsley and S. D.Brown, Academic Press, London, United Kingdom.
Linsey, J., Clauss, E. F., Kurtoglu, T., Murphy, J. T., Wood, K. L., and Markman, A. B., 2011, “An Experimental Study of Group Idea Generation Techniques: Understanding the Roles of Idea Representation and Viewing Methods,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 133(3), p. 031008. [CrossRef]
Nelson, B. A., Wilson, J. O., Rosen, D., and Yen, J., 2009, “Refined Metrics for Measuring Ideation Effectiveness,” Des. Stud., 30(6), pp. 737–743. [CrossRef]
Shah, J. J., Smith, S. M., and Vargas-Hernandez, N., 2003, “Metrics for Measuring Ideation Effectiveness,” Des. Stud., 24(2), pp. 111–134. [CrossRef]
Linsey, J., Green, M., Murphy, J., Wood, K., and Markman, A., 2005, “Collaborating to Success: An Experimental Study of Group Idea Generation Techniques,” ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Long Beach, CA.
Good, P. I., 2001, Resampling Methods: A Practical Guide to Data Analysis, Birkhauser, Boston, MA.
Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S., 2007, Experimental Designs Using Anova, Thomson/Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA.
Howell, D. C., 2009, Statistical Methods for Psychology, Wadsworth Publishing Group, Pacific Grove, CA.
Hernandez, N. V., Shah, J. J., and Smith, S. M., 2010, “Understanding Design Ideation Mechanisms through Multilevel Aligned Empirical Studies,” Des. Stud., 31(4), pp. 382–410. [CrossRef]
Wang, H.-C., Cosley, D., and Fussell, S. R., 2010, “Idea Expander: Supporting Group Brainstorming With Conversationally Triggered Visual Thinking Stimuli,” Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, ACM.
Lüthje, C., Herstatt, C., and Von Hippel, E., 2005, “User-Innovators and “Local” Information: The Case of Mountain Biking,” Res. Policy, 34(6), pp. 951–965. [CrossRef]
Cohen, J., 2003, Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, John Wiley, New York.
Wong, Y. Y., 1992, “Rough and Ready Prototypes: Lessons From Graphic Design,” Posters and Short Talks of the 1992 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Monterey, CA.
Viswanathan, V. K., and Linsey, J. S., 2011, “Understanding Physical Models in Design Cognition: A Triangulation of Qualitative and Laboratory Studies,” ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Rapid City, SD.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Various physical models built by the developers of a cocoa grinding machine. The final product is shown in the lower right corner [7].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Tools and materials used for making physical models out of steel wire in Metal Building and Metal Constrained Sketching conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Tools and materials used for making physical models out of plastic in Plastic Building and Plastic Constrained Sketching conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Examples of steel paperclips built by the participants

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Examples of plastic paperclips built by the participants

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Variation of mean novelty of idea sketches, maximum novelty of idea sketches, and the mean novelty of physical models across the experiment conditions. Error bars show (±) 1 standard error.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Variation of mean variety of idea sketches and physical models across the experimental conditions. Error bars show (±) 1 standard error.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Variation of mean number of ideas generated across the experimental conditions. Error bars show (±) 1 standard error.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Mean percentage of nonbuildable ideas across the experiment conditions. Error bars show (±) 1 standard error.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Percentage of functional ideas reduces slightly with idea generation time

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Functional and nonfunctional ideas generated by typical participants in each experimental conditions as a function of idea generation time

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Percentage of functional ideas varies significantly across the conditions. Error bars show (±) 1 standard error.




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In