ScienceGuardians

ScienceGuardians

Did You Know?

ScienceGuardians holds all parties accountable

The role of generative design and additive manufacturing capabilities in developing human–AI symbiosis: Evidence from multiple case studies

Authors: Elliot Bendoly,Aravind Chandrasekaran,Mateus do Rego Ferreira Lima,Robert Handfield,Siavash H. Khajavi,Samuel Roscoe
Journal: Decision Sciences
Publisher: Wiley
Publish date: 2023-10-28
ISSN: 0011-7315,1540-5915 DOI: 10.1111/deci.12619
View on Publisher's Website
Up
0
Down
::

The authors repeatedly associate generative design (GD) capability with organizational agility and pivot success, but the figures (particularly Figure 3) imply correlation without establishing causal mechanisms.

Critically, the figures (and narrative) fail to disentangle whether GD use is a cause of agility, or merely a proxy for other latent organizational traits, such as design culture, technological sophistication, or management flexibility, which are the true enablers of pivoting behavior.

This is a major conceptual flaw because:

Figure 3 shows differences in GD use between pivoting and non-pivoting firms, but without controlling for confounding factors (e.g., firm size, R&D intensity, organizational structure).
The pivoting firms may have succeeded not because of GD tools per se, but because they already possessed flexible, innovation-oriented processes, and GD use simply co-evolved with those traits.
The figures misleadingly suggest a direct causal effect of GD on pivot success without offering a design or analysis that could isolate GD’s independent contribution.
Thus, unless the authors can demonstrate that GD experience uniquely contributes to pivoting beyond other organizational capabilities, the visual evidence in Figures 2 and 3 risks reinforcing a spurious relationship.

A clarification is necessary on:

Whether the authors attempted to control for or account for confounding organizational factors when interpreting the GD–pivot relationship.
How the figures can be defended against the critique of illustrating correlation, but not causality.
Without resolving this, the conclusions drawn from the figures remain scientifically fragile.

All Replies

Viewing 2 replies - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)

3 months, 3 weeks ago

The research design treats “GD usage” as an independent variable when it is almost certainly a symptom (or output) of a much broader AM capability foundation. The observed “pivot ability” is likely caused by this underlying foundation, not solely by the GD tool itself. The authors provide no evidence to rule out this alternative explanation.

The study cannot validly claim that GD is the unique or primary catalyst for human-AI symbiosis and pivot agility. The findings may simply show that well-resourced, mature AM firms are better at pivoting than less mature ones, and that these advanced firms also happen to use GD. This omitted variable bias invalidates the causal chain the authors attempt to build.

1 week, 5 days ago

The authors state: Half of these firms were selected for consideration given their choice to pivot AM resources toward the production of COVID-19-related items… whereas the other half did not. This classification, established in mid-2020, is treated as a stable, defining characteristic for the entire multi-year study. The risk is that a firm’s “choice” at a single, early point in a rapidly evolving crisis may not accurately reflect its capacity or ultimate actions.

Could some firms classified as Did Not Pivot have later engaged in COVID-19 production after the Stage 1 cutoff? The demand and supply landscape for PPE and related items shifted dramatically throughout 2020. A firm that saw no opportunity or need in May might have engaged by August. If such firms remained in the non-pivoting group for analysis, it introduces noise and potentially biases the results by diluting the contrast between your theoretically defined groups. The subsequent stages track performance and learning, but the foundational group assignment might be flawed.
Conversely, could some Pivoted firms have made only a very superficial, short-lived effort? The paper mentions that for most, the intention was to return to business as usual. If the pivot was minimal or abandoned quickly, does grouping them with firms that made sustained, serious commitments confound the analysis of capabilities and outcomes?

Viewing 2 replies - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.