Studying the appearance and effect of creativity within the the latter stages of the product development process

This paper presents a framework and coding scheme for identifying creative design approaches, particularly towards the end of the design process. These were evaluated using five undergraduate students over a 22 week individual project. The designers either followed a routine approach (using well-understood schemes), an opportunistic approach (developing creative results through changes in how they apply the available variables to the task), or an astute approach (developing creative results by changing the variables themselves). The coding scheme allows greater understanding of the creative design process, which will then be used to improve support for designers, to the benefit of their working style and project.

[1]  John S. Gero,et al.  The Situated Function — Behaviour — Structure Framework , 2004 .

[2]  Thomas J. Howard,et al.  The Integration of Systems Levels and Design Activities to Position Creativity Support Tools , 2009 .

[3]  M. Dewey,et al.  Coefficients of Agreement , 1983, British Journal of Psychiatry.

[4]  John S. Gero,et al.  Creativity, emergence and evolution in design , 1996, Knowl. Based Syst..

[5]  Amaresh Chakrabarti,et al.  DEFINING AND SUPPORTING DESIGN CREATIVITY , 2006 .

[6]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product Design , 1994 .

[7]  Axel Brinkop,et al.  Routine Design for Mechanical Engineering , 1995, AI Mag..

[8]  Vladimir Hubka,et al.  Principles of engineering design , 1982 .

[9]  J. Gerring.  A case study , 2011, Technology and Society.

[10]  Maria J. Stokes,et al.  Managing Engineering Knowledge: MOKA-Methodology for Knowledge Based Engineering Applications , 2001 .

[11]  Stephen Culley,et al.  Comparing the information content of formal and informal design documents: Lessons for more complete design records , 2009 .

[12]  Clive L. Dym,et al.  Engineering Design: A Synthesis of Views , 1994 .

[13]  David G. Ullman,et al.  The Evolution of Commitments in the Design of a Component , 1992 .

[14]  Steve Caplin,et al.  Principles Of Design , 2011 .

[15]  David C. Brown,et al.  The Curse of Creativity , 2010, DCC.

[16]  M. Kirton.  Adaptors and Innovators: A Description and Measure. , 1976 .

[17]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Expertise in Design: an overview , 2004 .

[18]  Crispin Hales,et al.  Engineering design: a systematic approach , 1989 .

[19]  Bryan Lawson,et al.  “Fake” and “Real” creativity using computer aided design: some lessons from Herman Hertzberger , 1999, Creativity & Cognition.

[20]  David G. Ullman,et al.  The Mechanical Design Process , 1992 .

[21]  Graham Thompson,et al.  A review of creativity principles applied to engineering design , 1999 .

[22]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution , 2001 .

[23]  Klaus Krippendorff,et al.  Answering the Call for a Standard Reliability Measure for Coding Data , 2007 .

[24]  Mary Lou Maher,et al.  Formalising Design Exploration as Co-Evolution , 1996 .

[25]  Thomas J. Howard,et al.  Describing the creative design process by the integration of engineering design and cognitive psychology literature , 2008 .

[26]  Stuart Pugh,et al.  Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering , 1991 .

[27]  Jacob Cohen.  A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[28]  George Ellwood Dieter,et al.  Engineering Design: A Materials and Processing Approach , 1983 .

[29]  J. Gero.  Computational Models of Innovative and Creative Design Processes , 2000 .

[30]  John S. Gero,et al.  The differences between retrospective and concurrent protocols in revealing the process-oriented aspects of the design process , 2001 .