1. Introduction
Design is an arduous, iterative process that is anything but brief, but a ‘design brief’ is usually where it starts. It is a “description of the proposal to conceive something that is needed for use in future” (Reference Rao and MathewRao and Mathew, 2022), and is regarded to be a stimulant in the domains of product design and architecture (Reference LawsonLawson, 2004; Reference Blyth and WorthingtonBlyth & Worthington, 2010; Reference Paton and DorstPaton & Dorst, 2011), marketing (Reference PhillipsPhillips, 2004), advertisement (Reference HackleyRothenburg, 1999; Reference HackleyHackley, 2005) and construction (Reference RydRyd, 2004). While ‘design brief’, synonymous with ‘problem statement’, is commonly provided to the designer(s) by important and influential stakeholders who may or may not be the primary user; it requires rigorous structuring and reframing by designer(s) to formulate a relevant brief (Reference CrossCross, 2005).
Teamwork is known to compensate for the lacunae in individual members and so, it only seems obvious that a team would perform better than individual, as the team will bring in varied perspectives, knowledge and expertise. However, informal interactions with students revealed otherwise which motivated this study. Students from varied years of study in Undergraduate and Postgraduate design programs, were found to repeatedly lament on the challenges and shortcomings faced during teamwork, stating that they lose a lot of time in negotiations to arrive at a consensus, leaving them with little time to focus on quality and often dissatisfied with the creative direction eventually undertaken. Several preferred working individually rather than in a team or preferred their ‘friends’. However, Hong and Page (Reference Hackley2004) note that a team of randomly chosen problem-solvers outperformed a team of established problem-solvers, whereas there is close to no difference between the productivity of the design process employed by individuals and homogenous teams (Reference GoldschmidtGoldschmidt, 1995). In contrast, however, (Reference HackleyKokotovich and Dorst, 2016) found that non-homogenous multidisciplinary design teams have outcomes similar to that of novice designers. This beckoned investigation into how homogenous but multidisciplinary team members may produce better output, i.e., design brief.
This paper examines the quality and structuring of design briefs by ‘advanced-beginner’ designers, i.e., postgraduate design students - individually versus in multidisciplinary design teams, to assess the implication of teaming up. This research is a subset of a larger body of work aimed at supporting designers and design educators with appropriate tools and strategies for improving understanding of problem space, briefing and developing list of requirements, and potentially the quality of solution outcome.
2. Literature review
The crafting of a design brief entails moving from an initial or start state to a goal or end state through a transformation from incomplete specifications to less unspecified, resulting in an articulation with a higher level of refinement and representation (Reference HackleyReitman,1964; Reference Dixon, Duffy, Irani, Meunier,K. and OrelupDixon et al. 1988; Reference UllmanUllman 1992). Reference Kokotovich and DorstKokotovich and Dorst (2016) stress that expert designers ‘step back’ or abstract the brief while the novice sticks to objective features and rules, and recognises that between the expert and the novice lies the ‘advanced beginner’, the ‘competent’ and the ‘proficient’, each characterised by certain approaches towards briefing. Reference SchonSchon (1983) notes that this ‘reframing’ involves interactively naming things to attend to and the context in which to attend. Reference DorstDorst (2003) characterizes these “things” as, ‘partly determined’ - things that must be attended to, such as needs, requirements, and constraints; ‘majorly underdetermined’ - things that are arrived upon, individually or collaboratively; and ‘partly undetermined’ - things where the designer has freedom. The articulated brief comprises a (description of the) problem statement, limitations and constraints on the solution, and the criterion for the outcome (Reference CrossCross, 2005). It may also state client’s or users’ needs, functional and non-functional requirements, target audience, context, timeframe, objectives and parameters, existing products, artifact type, etc. (Reference Blyth and WorthingtonBlyth and Worthington, 2010; Reference McAllistarMcAllistar, 2010; Reference Jones and AsklandJones and Askland, 2012; Reference Silk, Daly, McKilligan, Jablokow, Yilmaz and BergSilk et al. 2014; Reference KelleyKelley, 2020). Further little is understood about how briefs are written. Reference Branda, Silveira, Van der Linden, Bohemia and KayganBranda et al. (2019) studied strategies adopted by design student groups and found that their backgrounds influenced the strategies. Reference HackleyEströmer et al. (2017) explored questioning of client briefs through role-playing and reported that the method showed promise in addressing the ambiguity of design challenges. However, the impact of team was not delved into, nor were the influence of competencies and pre-requisites of individuals and teams discussed.
Thus, an empirical study is undertaken to assess the impact of teaming up on the quality of briefs and the objectives as follows;
(i) To conduct a comparative evaluation of the quality of design briefs crafted by ‘advanced beginner’, i.e., post-graduate design students, as individuals versus in multi-disciplinary teams, and
(ii) To examine the perception of the design students, individually and then collectively in teams, on their written design brief.
3. Empirical study
Comparative studies were conducted across a single, homogenous subject group in 2 instances - first, as individuals and later as members of multidisciplinary teams. The study subjects were 58 newly joined students of the 1st year Masters in Design (MDes) program in their 1st week of class, all having cleared the national Common Entrance Examination for Design, a design aptitude test mandated for entry to the program, deeming that they all are at similar levels of competencies. They have varied design experiences from none to up to two years in the industry, and all have an undergraduate degree, either from Engineering and Technology, Architecture, Industrial Design, Fashion Design, Visual Communication, or Fine Arts. In addition, they are all exposed to the same pre-requisite design courses that introduce design elements, principles, process and methods, including what is a brief.
3.1. Methodology
The methodology (Figure 1) of the study entailed two empirical studies of 1.5hrs each, conducted on two separate days where the participants, either as individuals (Study 1) or in teams (Study 2), were given a need statement and asked to craft a brief followed by conceptualize design solutions. Different need statements were given of products of similar complexity, but not of same functionality. In both studies, the subjects were asked to rate their experience of, writing the design brief (1a / 2a) and conceptualizing on a qualitative scale across Poor-Neutral-Good (1b/2b).
Figure 1. Methodology
Study 1: Individual study
Subjects - 58 students of MDes 1st year with UG degrees in Design, engineering, Architecture, etc.
Given need statement - Write a short design brief (500 words max.) and then conceptualize design ideas for ‘School desk for two kids’.
Study 2: Team study
Subjects - 10 homogenous multidisciplinary teams, such that there was an equitable distribution of people with different UG degrees in each team ( Figure 2 ).
Given need statement - Write a short design brief (500 words max.) and then conceptualize design ideas for: (i) an ‘office bag’ (Teams 1-5), and (ii) a ‘lunch box’ (Teams 6-10).
Additionally, in Study 2, to capture teams’ perception , a questionnaire on; whether teamwork improved their design brief (2c), their conceptualizing (2d), and the creativity of their ideas (2e) was asked. The teams were also asked to reflect on; their ability to ‘address all the needs or requirements or what they had in mind written in brief’ (2f), across the scale of Partially (more than half were addressed), Mostly (1 or 2 got left out), and Yes (all were addressed).
Figure 2. Team distribution across disciplines (UG degrees)
3.2. Analysis
The quality of the resultant briefs was analysed by two experts, who have authored this paper, based on the Content of the Design Brief - Vision, Need, Criteria, and Goal; pre-classified with respect to the level of abstraction of structural components of the Design brief (Reference DorstDorst, 2003) in a scale to assure common understanding and consensus.
The experts are members of the Faculty of Design from two different National Institutes of Eminence, having PhDs relevant to design science. Expert 1 has over 20 years of teaching and research experience, while Expert 2 has 5 years postdoctoral experience. They co-developed an evaluation scale for rating the briefs based on the content present in brief classified with respect to Dorst’s proposed components of Design brief to ensure common understanding, as in ( Table 1 ). The experts rated the quality of the brief through the judging method of consensual agreement.
Table 1. Expert evaluation scale
4. Results
In Study 1 , as exemplified in ( Table 2 ), out of 58 briefs eventually admissible for the study, experts rated - 26% as Poor, 43% as Fair, 25% as Good & 6% as Very Good.
Individuals reported;
(1a) experience in writing the design brief: 10% Poor, 55% Neutral, and 35% Good.
(1b) experience in conceptualising design ideas: 5% Poor, 57% Neutral, and 38% Good.
Whereas in Study 2 , as exemplified in ( Table 3 ), experts rated the quality of brief as; 30% Very Good, 60% Good, and 10% i.e., 1 team as ‘Fair’, who surprisingly crafted a unique focus out of the given problem and defined an unconventional goal.
Table 2. Study 1 - Expert evaluation of design briefs (Individual)
Table 3. Expert evaluation of design briefs (Teams)
Additionally, in Study 2 the Teams reported (as in Table 3 );
(2a) experience in writing the design brief: 40% Neutral and 60% Good.
(2b) experience in conceptualising design ideas: 30% Neutral and 70% Good.
(2c) teamwork improved their brief: 100% ‘Yes’
(2d) teamwork improved their conceptualizing: 100% ‘Yes’
(2e) teamwork improved the creativity of their ideas: 100% ‘Yes’
(2f) their ability to ‘address all the needs or requirements or what you had in mind written in brief’: 10% Partially (more than half were addressed), 60% Mostly (1 or 2 got left out), and 30% Yes (all were addressed).
Impact of teaming up was assessed upon the scores of the design briefs were qualified as: V. Good – 5; Good – 4; Fair – 3 and Poor- 1, and the total of all the individual scores of each member of the Team, from Study 1, was averaged to achieve an Anticipated Team performance score. This was then compared to the Actual Team performance score assigned by experts from Study 2, as in ( Table 4 ).
Table 4. Anticipated vs actual team score on design briefs
5. Findings and inferences
The findings from Study 1, with a slim number of highly adept (scoring V. Good) and most (over 40%) students exhibiting a ‘Fair’ sense of design briefing, balanced off with equitable distribution of ‘Poor’ and ‘Good’ craftmanship, was as expected. However, the significant jump in the quality of the brief in Study 2, with 30% and 60% being ‘very good’ and ‘good’ respectively, is a welcome surprise and is a noteworthy improvement. Furthermore, the jump in score of Team 4, from 1.8 to 5, is a fascinating find as four out of the six members had scored ‘poor’ in the individual assessment of study 1 while the other two had done relatively well.
Upon comparison of the anticipated and actual Team scores, the ‘jump’ can be further appreciated as most Teams, 8 on 10 (save Teams 4 and 10) scored 2.7-3.3 on 5 in the anticipated Team score, prompting to assume that they should gross ‘fairly’ in Study 2. But the study revealed that 9 out of the 10 teams did better than anticipated, and one team, Team 5, while showing no significant improvement, did craft the most ‘unique’ brief out of the lot. It may be noted that Team 5 only had 5 members, 4 out of which fared well and only one individual did ‘poorly’ during study 1.
It was evident from both studies that students’ self-reporting of their own experience of writing the brief and later undertaking conceptualisation, be it as individuals as in (1a) and (1b), or in teams as in (2a) and (2b), is not reflective of the quality of the brief. However, there was a unanimous agreement that teamwork positively improved both these activities, as in (2c) and (2d). The students additionally reported in complete agreement that teamwork also improved the creativity of their ideas, as in (2e). Finally, as a proxy measure to assess the potential usefulness of the solution – a measure of creativity along with novelty, the students reported that in most instances, they were able to ‘address all the needs or requirements or what you had in mind written in brief’. It was observed that 2 of the 3 ‘very good’ brief had addressed all the needs and requirements outlined in their briefs.
6. Discussions, limitations and future directions
The empirical study presented in this paper is indicative of the value and potential of the homogenous yet multidisciplinary team to positively impact the quality of the design brief crafted. Yet the subjects reflected that they were still not confident of the quality and appropriateness of the briefs they drafted, seeking further support to do so. This might be inherent to the ‘advanced beginner’ and confidence may arise as they grow from becoming ‘competent’ to ‘proficient’ to ‘expert’ and have the ability to ‘step back’ (Reference Kokotovich and DorstKokotovich & Dorst, 2016). Nonetheless, it is meaningful to investigating the impact of theoretical and practical interventions on crafting the illusive ‘dream’ design brief, and the authors are presently undertaking a prescriptive study on supporting design briefing.
The study also showcased a steep rise in quality overall upon team building. While maybe attributed to specific high-performing individuals as it has proven influence (Reference Branda, Silveira, Van der Linden, Bohemia and KayganBranda et al., 2019), the advent of an otherwise ‘low performance’ anticipated team in breaching the glass ceiling challenges this widely accepted phenomenon. This poses an important question to be further studied - Who determines the design brief outcome in a team - is the burden borne by the few?
However, the data collection was limited to questionnaire and reflection, and did not capture the team interactions and dynamics that may have proven more insightful to determine the key factors, pre-requisites and conditions that influence the crafting of a quality design brief. Future directions include conducting protocol studies on homogenous but multidisciplinary design teams to assess optimal team compositions which can significantly contribute to design practice.
As discussed in literature, homogenous teams have shared mental models that allow effective communication and productive design process, while multidisciplinarity expands the knowledge space (Reference GoldschmidtGoldschmidt, 1995; Reference Kokotovich and DorstKokotovich & Dorst, 2016). So, the positive impact may also be due to broader exploration. This is in line with teams stating that they perceive an increase in their creativity upon teamwork, underscoring the possible contribution of multidisciplinary knowledge from the various members.
Acharya, et al. (2024) stress on the virtue of problem-based learning approaches in design for addressing real-world challenges and emphasises on cycles of individual and collaborative learning by members of multidisciplinary teams to regularly review and share to arrive at a common, more comprehensive understanding. This approach may be particularly appropriate as design teams today work from varied locations and collaborate often through remote tools, and developing hybrid modalities to enhance multidisciplinary exchange has potential to greatly support design practice.
Design theory and practice can both gain from understanding the relationship between briefing and conceptualisation. However, the improvement in the conceptualisation as a process and the outcome ideated by the team, in comparison to that performed by the students as individuals, is presently limited to perception of the team members. This unanimous optimistic perception is inadequately corroborated with the team-reported ‘ability to address all the needs or requirements’, i.e. Requirement satisfaction, a great proxy for predicting ‘usefulness’ – a metric of creativity. And while it is highly likely that an improved, i.e., ‘better’ brief will tend to inspire better outcomes, it is yet to be substantiated by experts. Expert evaluation of the ideas generated are presently underway to gauge whether the outcomes by such teams are in fact better than those by individuals, and perhaps identify the types of skills, be it cognitive or psychomotor, that attributes to the improvement.
Future directions of research may also entail exploring the use and role of Generative AI (artificial intelligence) agents as potent team members.
7. Closing remarks
The ‘dream team’ sits at the crossroads of homogeneity and multidisciplinary, and attempting to formulate the optimal team composition may breed contempt or camaraderie, which in turn may impede the creative process. The design brief has the promise of being a great starting point on this creative journey and the process of briefing has the possibility of becoming a great tool to not only improve the eventual solution outcome but also the designer in question.
This study iterates that design as a practice remains deeply grounded in collective interpretation and implementation, heavily relying on varied members collaboratively working together to initiate change. After all, design is a team sport!
Open access
