Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T11:24:21.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

HOW TO BEST FRAME A DESIGN BRIEF TO MAXIMIZE NOVELTY AND USEFULNESS IN IDEA GENERATION

Part of: Design Education

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

G. Koronis ,
A. Silva ,
J. K. S. Kang  and
C. Yogiaman
G. Koronis*
Affiliation:
Singapore University of Technology and Design, Singapore
A. Silva
Affiliation:
Singapore University of Technology and Design, Singapore
J. K. S. Kang
Affiliation:
Singapore University of Technology and Design, Singapore
C. Yogiaman
Affiliation:
Singapore University of Technology and Design, Singapore
*
*[email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper aims to identify factors that influence creativity, and strives towards understanding the effect of representations, namely abstract and concrete design outcomes. Three conditions are compared; a control group, an abstract group, and a group provided with various example solutions. The implications of this work can strongly impact the formulation of design briefs, where the goal is to stimulate the creativity of design brief outcomes and examine their relationship to product awareness.

Keywords

idea generationconceptual designempirical studies
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 1745 - 1754
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Amabile, T.M. (1996), Creativity in Context, 1st ed., Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
Baer, J. (2008), “Commentary: divergent thinking tests have problems, but this is not the solution”, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 89–92.10.1037/1931-3896.2.2.89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourgeois-Bougrine, S. et al. (2017), “Engineering students’ use of creativity and development tools in conceptual product design: What, when and how?”, Thinking Skills and Creativity, Vol. 24, pp. 104–117. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.02.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camburn, B.A. et al. (2017), “Design Innovation: A Study of Integrated Practice.” Ohio, USA, August 6-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlgren, L., Rauth, I. and Elmquist, M. (2016), “Framing Design Thinking: The Concept in Idea and Enactment”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 38–57. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/caim.12153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, P., Mugge, R. and Schoormans, J.P.L. (2014), “A new strategy to reduce design fixation: Presenting partial photographs to designers”, Design Studies, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 374–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2014.02.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, D.L. et al. (2006), “Identifying Quality, Novel, and Creative Ideas: Constructs and Scales for Idea Evaluation”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 7 No. 10, pp. 646–699.10.17705/1jais.00106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genco, N., Hölttä-Otto, K. and Seepersad, C.C. (2012), “An Experimental Investigation of the Innovation Capabilities of Undergraduate Engineering Students”, Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 101 No. 1, pp. 60–81. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00041.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. and Smolkov, M. (2006), “Variances in the impact of visual stimuli on design problem solving performance”, Design Studies, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 549–569. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2006.01.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstone, R. and Sakamoto, Y. (2003), The transfer of abstract principles governing complex adaptive systems. Vol. 46.Google ScholarPubMed
Gonçalves, M., Cardoso, C. and Badke-Schaub, P. (2016), “Inspiration choices that matter: the selection of external stimuli during ideation”, Design Science, Vol. 2, p. e10. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2016.10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goucher-Lambert, K., Moss, J. and Cagan, J. (2019), “A neuroimaging investigation of design ideation with and without inspirational stimuli—understanding the meaning of near and far stimuli”, Design Studies, Vol. 60, pp. 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.07.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckler, A.F. (2010), “Concrete vs. abstract problem formats: a disadvantage of prior knowledge”.Google Scholar
Holyoak, K.J. and Thagard, P. (1989), “Analogical Mapping by Constraint Satisfaction”, Cognitive Science, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 295–355. https://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1303_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, T.J., Dekoninck, E.A. and Culley, S.J. (2010), “The use of creative stimuli at early stages of industrial product innovation”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 263–274. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00163-010-0091-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansson, D.G. and Smith, S.M. (1991), “Design fixation”, Design Studies, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(91)90003-FCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, S., Kang, L. and Akil, H.M. (2016), “Mechanical Behavior of Jute Hybrid Bio-Composites”, Composites Part B: Engineering, Vol. 91, pp. 83–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2015.12.052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kampylis, P.G. and Valtanen, J. (2010), “Redefining Creativity — Analyzing Definitions, Collocations, and Consequences”, The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 191–214. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2010.tb01333.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, K. S. J. et al. (2018), “Exploring the use of a full factorial design of experiment to study design briefs for creative ideation”, ASME-IDETC, Quebec, Canada, August 26-29.Google Scholar
Koronis, G. et al. (2019), “An Empirical Study on the Impact of Design Brief Information on the Creativity of Design Outcomes with consideration of Gender, and Gender Diversity”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 141 No. 7, pp. 071102–071114. https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4043207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawson, R.B. (2006), How designers think: The Design Process Demystified, Butterworth Architecture, Jordan Hill, Oxford.10.4324/9780080454979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lievens, F., De Corte, W. and Westerveld, L. (2012), “Understanding the Building Blocks of Selection Procedures: Effects of Response Fidelity on Performance and Validity”, Journal of Management, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 1604–1627. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206312463941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linsey, J.S., Markman, A.B. and Wood, K.L. (2012), “Design by Analogy: A Study of the WordTree Method for Problem Re-Representation”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 134 No. 4. https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4006145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linsey, J.S. et al. (2010), “A Study of Design Fixation, Its Mitigation and Perception in Engineering Design Faculty”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 132 No. 4, pp. 1–12. https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4001110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marschark, M. and Paivio, A. (1977), “Integrative processing of concrete and abstract sentences”, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80048-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runco, M.A. and Jaeger, G.J. (2012), “The Standard Definition of Creativity”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 92–96. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, J.J., Smith, S.M. and Vargas-Hernandez, N. (2003), “Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness”, Design Studies, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 111–134. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(02)00034-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shai, O. et al. (2013), “Creativity and scientific discovery with infused design and its analysis with C–K theory”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 201–214. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00163-012-0137-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, R., Vasconcelos, L. A. and Cardoso, C.C. (2018), “Design briefs in creativity studies”, ICDC, Bath, UK, Jan 31-Feb 2.Google Scholar
Studer, J. et al. (2016), Cognitive Heuristics in Defining Engineering Design Problems.10.1115/DETC2016-59942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toh, C.A. and Miller, S.R. (2015), “How engineering teams select design concepts: A view through the lens of creativity”, Design Studies, Vol. 38, pp. 111–138. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2015.03.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasconcelos, L.A. et al. (2017), “Inspiration and Fixation: The Influences of Example Designs and System Properties in Idea Generation”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 139 No. 3, pp. 031101–031113. https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4035540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasconcelos, L.A. and Crilly, N. (2016), “Inspiration and fixation: Questions, methods, findings, and challenges”, Design Studies, Vol. 42, pp. 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2015.11.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viswanathan, V. and Linsey, J. (2012), Physical Models and Design Thinking: A Study of Functionality, Novelty and Variety of Ideas. Vol. 134.Google Scholar
Zahner, D. et al. (2010), “A fix for fixation? Rerepresenting and abstracting as creative processes in the design of information systems”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 231–244. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0890060410000077CrossRefGoogle Scholar