디자인 사고 유형 분석에 관한 연구

Abstract

디자이너는 두뇌에서 인식하고, 지각된 정보를 손으로 표현하는 과정에서 개인적 성향이 드러나며 디자인 결과물에 대한 차이가 발생한다. 즉, 디자인 기획의도나 관련정보 및 기반지식을 동일하게 제시할 경우라도 모두가 유사한 결과물을 도출하지 않는 것이 일반적인 사실이다. 또한 많은 디자이너들은 관념이나 경험의 범주에서 형상을 떠올리므로 사고의 한계를 경험하게 되는데, 이는 디자인 초기에 조형이미지를 탐색하고, 이를 적용하는 단계에서부터 획일화 되거나 자기 편향적 방향으로 치우칠 수 있다. 따라서 다양한 형상을 구현하고 다각도로 형상을 검토하기 위해서는 디자이너의 직관적 감성과 참고용 조형 이미지 검색을 통해 결과물을 도출하는 보편적인 방법을 탈피하여 디자이너가 보지 못하거나 연상하기 힘든 조형이미지를 다각도로 검토할 수 있는 방법을 마련하는 것이 중요하다. 본 연구에서는 디자이너가 문제해결 과정에서 매우 빈번하게 사용하고 있으며 디자이너의 행위를 특정 짓는다고 할 수 있는 도구 중 하나인 ‘에스키스(esquisse)’ 행위에 대한 분석을 통해서 디자인 사고에 의한 이미지 결과 분류, 그에 따른 디자이너의 사고유형을 탐구하고자 하였다. 여기에 로저 스페리(Roger Sperry)의 좌·우뇌 분할 이론과 맥린(Mac Lean)의 두뇌삼위일체설의 두뇌에 관한 특성을 토대로 두뇌 특성을 재구성한 네드허먼(Ned Herrmann)의 ‘두뇌 4분할 이론’을 고찰하여 ‘전뇌 모형(Whole Brain Model)’ 내용을 토대로 피실험자가 도출한 에스키스 분석 내용과 두뇌 활용 영역과의 상관관계를 찾아내어 디자인 사고 유형을 분류하고 그 특징과 특성에 대해 탐구하였다. 실험대상은 제품디자인 전공 학생 90명을 표본으로 하며 A·B·C그룹 각각 30명으로 구성하였다. A그룹은 1차 텍스트정보, 2차 이미지정보, B그룹은 1차 이미지정보, 2차 텍스트정보를 제시하였으며 C그룹은 텍스트정보와 이미지정보가 조합된 샘플을 두 차례 제시하였다. 디자인발상지원 유형에 따라 피실험자의 에스키스결과가 달라지는 과정을 관찰하여 그룹별 차이와 관계를 해석하였으며 에스키스결과를 바탕으로 조형요소들의 활용과 형상들의 진화를 검토하기 위해 정량적 분석을 실시하였다. 정량 분석방법은 디자이너 개인의 에스키스에 나타난 조형요소를 수량화 판별 가능하도록 13가지 조형요소를 분류하고 그 사용량을 측정하였다.

정량적 분석을 통해 A그룹과 B그룹, 양 그룹 모두 텍스트정보를 제공 받았을 때 직선의 사용량이 월등히 높은 것을 알 수 있었으며, 이미지정보를 제공 받았을 때 원, 사각형의 사용량이 높은 것을 알 수 있었다. 그리고 이미지 정보와 텍스트 정보가 결합된 샘플을 제공받은 C그룹은 조형 사용도가 높을 것이라는 예상과 달리 A, B그룹의 결과 내용과 큰 차이를 보이지 않았다. 이러한 결과는 조형분석 Matrix를 사용하는데 있어 그룹을 나눠 이미지 정보와 텍스트 정보를 따로 제공하였을 경우 달라지는 스케치 양상을 분석하는 실험 설계에 문제가 있다고 판단하였다. 그 후 정성적 분석 설계를 통해 전문가 집단을 구성하여 F.G.I(Focus Group Interview)를 실시하였으며, 이를 토대로 에스키스를 유형별로 분류하여 분석하였다. 첫째, F.G.I를 통해 90명이 도출해낸 180개의 에스키스 결과물을 M-type, N-type, O-type, P-type, Q-type의 5가지 유형으로 분류하였으며 유사성에 군집화 된 유형들을 고찰하고 그들의 특징과 특성을 분석하였다. M-type은 제한적인 조형을 사용하였지만 기능적, 구조적인 내용을 연산시켜나가는 형태를 보였으며, N-type은 다각형과 곡선을 자유자재로 사용하며 형태적인 모티브를 통해 감각적인 조형을 도출하였다. O-type은 공간표현 능력이 우수하며 시각적인 효과를 중시하였으며, P-type은 O-type과 비슷한 양상을 보였지만 표현 능력에 있어서 미숙한 모습을 보였다. 마지막으로 Q-type은 타 유형과 달리 주로 텍스트를 기록해 나가며 발상을 전개한 형태를 보였다. 둘째, 다섯 가지 유형의 두뇌 사고 성향을 알아내고자 90명의 표본을 네드허먼(Ned Herrmann)의 HBDI검사(두뇌선호도검사)를 통해 각 유형내 두뇌 선호 분포도를 분석하여 시각화하였다. M-type은 좌뇌형이 80%를 차지하고 있었으며, N-type은 변연계형이 47.4%, 우하뇌형이 42.1%씩 차지하고 있었다. O-type은 우뇌형이 80%, 우하뇌형이 20%를 차지하고 있으며, P-type은 우뇌형 54.5%, 우하뇌형이 27.3%를 차지하고 있었다. 마지막으로 Q-type은 우뇌형 45.3%, 좌뇌형 33.3%로 정 반대의 성격이 두루 분포하는 이질적인 집단으로 구성되어있다. 셋째, 다섯 가지 유형별 에스키스의 특징 분석내용과 각 유형별 두뇌 성향에 따른 성격을 매치시켜 유사성에 관한 분석을 실시하였으며, 다섯 가지 유형 모두 에스키스 특징과 두뇌 성향 스타일에 큰 차이가 없이 두 성격의 동질성이 높다는 결론을 내렸고 각 유형들의 명칭을 정리하였다. M-type은 논리적이고 순차적인 좌뇌형, N-type은 감성적이지만 통제적인 우하뇌 중심 변연계형, O-type은 시각적이고 혁신적인 우뇌형, P-type은 O-type과 비슷하지만 표현능력이 미흡한 표현미숙 우뇌형, Q-type은 텍스트를 선호하는 대뇌반구형으로 분류하였다. 본 연구를 통해 다섯 가지 유형의 스케치 성향과 두뇌성향을 대조 분석하여 다양한 특성과 특징을 가지고 있는 각각의 두뇌유형을 갖고 있는 디자이너가 디자인 사고과정에 있어서 내면적으로 어떤 활용을 보이고 있는지 분석이 가능하다는 것을 추론하였다. 또한 본 연구 모형 및 정량적이고 정성적인 연구 결과를 통해 디자이너의 디자인사고 유형을 분류하고, 각 유형의 장점과 단점을 분석하여 장점을 키우고 단점을 보완시킬 수 있는 방법을 찾아내는 연구의 기틀을 마련할 수 있는 유효성을 입증하였다.| In the process of expressing the information recognized and perceived in the brain by hand, a designer reveals personal disposition and differences in design output are caused. That is, it is a common fact that even if presenting the same design planning intention or related information and base knowledge, everyone does not derive similar output. Many designers also experience the limitations of thinking because they think of the shape in the category of ideas or experiences and may be uniform or be biased toward self-biased direction from the step of exploring a formative image and applying it in the early days of design. In order to implement various shapes and examine the shape at various angles, therefore, it is important to break from a common method of deriving the output through intuitive sensibility of the designer and search of a formative image for reference and provide a method of reviewing formative images that the designer cannot see or hard to associate at various angles. This study was to explore the image result classification by design thinking and resulting thinking type of a designer through the analysis of the 'esquisse' behavior, one of the tools that is used very frequently by designers in the problem-solving process and can be said to specify the act of the designer. In addition, by considering Ned Herrmann’s ‘Brain 4 division theory’ reconstructing the brain characteristics based on the characteristics of the brain of Roger Sperry’s left·right brain division theory and Mac Lean’s Brain Trinitarianism and finding a correlation between the brain utilization area and esquisse analysis contents derived by the subjects based on the contents of ‘Whole Brain Model’, we classified design thinking types and explored the features and characteristics. For the subjects, 90 students majoring in product design were selected as samples and each of A·B·C group was composed of 30 people. 1st text information and 2nd image information, 1st image information and 2nd text information were presented to A group and B group, respectively and the samples of combining text information and image information were presented to C group two times. Group differences and relationships were interpreted by observing the process where the esquisse results of subjects vary depending on design conception support types and quantitative analysis was performed in order to examine the utilization of the formative elements and evolution of shapes based on the esquisse results. With the quantitative analysis method, 13 formative elements were classified and the amount used was measured to quantify and determine the formative elements shown in an individual designer’s esquisse. Through the quantitative analysis, the amount of the straight line used was found to be much higher in both groups of A group and B group when receiving the text information and the amount of the circle, square used was found to high when receiving the image information. And unlike the expectation that formative usage will be higher, C group receiving the sample of combining image information and text information did not show significant differences from the result contents of A and B groups. These results showed a problem with the experimental design to analyze sketch aspects varying when providing image information and text information separately by dividing groups in using formative analysis Matrix. And then, F.G.I(Focus Group Interview) was carried out by configuring an expert group through the qualitative analysis design and esquisse was classified by type and analyzed based on it. First, 180 esquisse outputs derived by 90 people through F.G.I were classified into 5 types of M-type, N-type, O-type, P-type, Q-type and types grouped based on similarity were examined and their features and characteristics were analyzed. M-type used limited molding but showed the shape of calculating the functional and structural contents and N-type derived sensuous modeling through morphological motifs while using polygons and curves freely. O-type showed excellent spatial representation skills and emphasized visual effects and P-type showed a similar pattern to O-type but showed an immature state in expressive power. Finally, unlike types, Q-type mainly showed the shape of recording the text and developing the idea. Second, in order to find out brain thinking disposition of 5 types, the brain preference distribution in each type for the samples of 90 people was analyzed and visualized through Ned Herrmann’s HBDI test (Brain preference test). The left brain type accounted for 80% in M-type and limbic system type 47.4% in N-type, lower right brain type 42.1%. The right brain type, lower right brain type accounted for 80%, 20%, respectively in O-type and right brain type, lower right brain type accounted for 54.5%, 27.3%, respectively in P-type. Finally, Q-type was composed of heterogeneous groups where the opposite nature is extensively distributed, right brain type 45.3% and left brain type 33.3%. Third, the analysis of similarity was carried out by matching the contents of analyzing the features of esquisse by five types with nature depending on brain tendency by each type and it was concluded that the homogeneity of both nature is high without significant difference in esquisse features and brain tendency style in all five types and the names of each types were summarized. M-type was classified into the logical and sequential left brain type, N-type into emotional but control lower right brain centered limbic system type, O-type into visual and innovative right brain type, P-type into the right brain type which is similar to O-type but the ability to express is lacking and Q-type into the cerebral hemisphere type preferring text. By contrasting and analyzing five types of sketch tendencies and brain tendencies through this study, it was deduced that which utilization the designer with each brain type with various features and characteristics shows internally in the design thinking process can be analyzed. Also, the design thinking types of designers were classified through this research model, quantitative and qualitative research results and the effectiveness of laying the groundwork for research that can find a method of analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of each type to enhance the advantages and complement the disadvantages was proven.; In the process of expressing the information recognized and perceived in the brain by hand, a designer reveals personal disposition and differences in design output are caused. That is, it is a common fact that even if presenting the same design planning intention or related information and base knowledge, everyone does not derive similar output. Many designers also experience the limitations of thinking because they think of the shape in the category of ideas or experiences and may be uniform or be biased toward self-biased direction from the step of exploring a formative image and applying it in the early days of design. In order to implement various shapes and examine the shape at various angles, therefore, it is important to break from a common method of deriving the output through intuitive sensibility of the designer and search of a formative image for reference and provide a method of reviewing formative images that the designer cannot see or hard to associate at various angles. This study was to explore the image result classification by design thinking and resulting thinking type of a designer through the analysis of the 'esquisse' behavior, one of the tools that is used very frequently by designers in the problem-solving process and can be said to specify the act of the designer. In addition, by considering Ned Herrmann’s ‘Brain 4 division theory’ reconstructing the brain characteristics based on the characteristics of the brain of Roger Sperry’s left·right brain division theory and Mac Lean’s Brain Trinitarianism and finding a correlation between the brain utilization area and esquisse analysis contents derived by the subjects based on the contents of ‘Whole Brain Model’, we classified design thinking types and explored the features and characteristics. For the subjects, 90 students majoring in product design were selected as samples and each of A·B·C group was composed of 30 people. 1st text information and 2nd image information, 1st image information and 2nd text information were presented to A group and B group, respectively and the samples of combining text information and image information were presented to C group two times. Group differences and relationships were interpreted by observing the process where the esquisse results of subjects vary depending on design conception support types and quantitative analysis was performed in order to examine the utilization of the formative elements and evolution of shapes based on the esquisse results. With the quantitative analysis method, 13 formative elements were classified and the amount used was measured to quantify and determine the formative elements shown in an individual designer’s esquisse. Through the quantitative analysis, the amount of the straight line used was found to be much higher in both groups of A group and B group when receiving the text information and the amount of the circle, square used was found to high when receiving the image information. And unlike the expectation that formative usage will be higher, C group receiving the sample of combining image information and text information did not show significant differences from the result contents of A and B groups. These results showed a problem with the experimental design to analyze sketch aspects varying when providing image information and text information separately by dividing groups in using formative analysis Matrix. And then, F.G.I(Focus Group Interview) was carried out by configuring an expert group through the qualitative analysis design and esquisse was classified by type and analyzed based on it. First, 180 esquisse outputs derived by 90 people through F.G.I were classified into 5 types of M-type, N-type, O-type, P-type, Q-type and types grouped based on similarity were examined and their features and characteristics were analyzed. M-type used limited molding but showed the shape of calculating the functional and structural contents and N-type derived sensuous modeling through morphological motifs while using polygons and curves freely. O-type showed excellent spatial representation skills and emphasized visual effects and P-type showed a similar pattern to O-type but showed an immature state in expressive power. Finally, unlike types, Q-type mainly showed the shape of recording the text and developing the idea. Second, in order to find out brain thinking disposition of 5 types, the brain preference distribution in each type for the samples of 90 people was analyzed and visualized through Ned Herrmann’s HBDI test (Brain preference test). The left brain type accounted for 80% in M-type and limbic system type 47.4% in N-type, lower right brain type 42.1%. The right brain type, lower right brain type accounted for 80%, 20%, respectively in O-type and right brain type, lower right brain type accounted for 54.5%, 27.3%, respectively in P-type. Finally, Q-type was composed of heterogeneous groups where the opposite nature is extensively distributed, right brain type 45.3% and left brain type 33.3%. Third, the analysis of similarity was carried out by matching the contents of analyzing the features of esquisse by five types with nature depending on brain tendency by each type and it was concluded that the homogeneity of both nature is high without significant difference in esquisse features and brain tendency style in all five types and the names of each types were summarized. M-type was classified into the logical and sequential left brain type, N-type into emotional but control lower right brain centered limbic system type, O-type into visual and innovative right brain type, P-type into the right brain type which is similar to O-type but the ability to express is lacking and Q-type into the cerebral hemisphere type preferring text. By contrasting and analyzing five types of sketch tendencies and brain tendencies through this study, it was deduced that which utilization the designer with each brain type with various features and characteristics shows internally in the design thinking process can be analyzed. Also, the design thinking types of designers were classified through this research model, quantitative and qualitative research results and the effectiveness of laying the groundwork for research that can find a method of analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of each type to enhance the advantages and complement the disadvantages was proven.