The Design Problem Framework: Using Adaption-Innovation Theory to Construct Design Problem Statements

Ideation is the process of generating ideas for solving design problems, and it is a critical part of the overall design process. In order to encourage designers to ideate across a broader spectrum of ideas, we developed the Design Problem Framework (DPF) to assist in the development and framing of design problem statements. Part of the basis for the DPF was research on cognitive styles, which suggests that there is a range of preferences for approaching problem solving, and that these preferences influence how different individuals naturally approach ideation. We used Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation theory as a basis for understanding the range of cognitive styles. The other part of the basis for the DPF was research on problem framing, which suggests that the structure of design problem statements influences an individual’s approach and the outcomes produced. Using the DPF as a foundation, we propose that design problems that encourage adaptive ideation behaviors include more specified constraints, along with criteria for solutions that build on already existing solutions to the same or similar problems. In contrast, design problems that encourage innovative ideation behaviors include criteria for solutions that are radically different from existing solutions and are not bound by specific constraints. In this paper, we present a set of five design problems constructed using the DPF, with three different versions of each problem statement: (1) a neutrally framed version; (2) an adaptively framed version; and (3) an innovatively framed version. Three examples of student-generated solutions are also discussed to illustrate the resulting outcomes. We propose this framework as a guide for the development of design problem statements for use in education, research, and the workplace. Introduction and Background What is the primary problem solved by this framework? The way a problem is structured and perceived by designers impacts the resulting outcomes, whether the context is education, research, or the workplace. In the workplace, the presentation of a problem supports understanding and communication regarding the expectations of the client and the approach taken by the designers. In addition, the wording of a problem statement can enhance or limit whether individuals with diverse expertise see their varied experiences and knowledge as relevant. In research on how engineers generate ideas to solve design problems, the choice of a single design problem is typically justified for a particular study, but rarely is there an explicit test of how the choice or presentation of that problem influences or biases the outcomes observed. In education, engineering instructors have the ability to create and select design problems in their instructional activities. However, the path for choosing problem statements (or guiding students to develop their own) that lead toward certain types of solutions (e.g., readily implementable, radically different than existing solutions) is not well defined. Whatever the setting, the framing of the design problem is rarely given the same attention as the actual implementation of the design process. Word choices, decisions about relevant information to include, and stated goals within these design problem statements are likely to impact approaches to generating solutions, as well as the design solutions themselves. Thus, as we seek to improve design skills and outcomes, we must focus on this critical element of the design process. P ge 24194.3 Our goal is to better understand how the framing of design problems can influence the types and ranges of solutions that individuals are likely to generate. Although we believe this understanding has benefits in workplace, research, and education settings, we start from the perspective of engineering education. In engineering design courses, there may be diversity in students’ own preferences for approaching design tasks, but there may also be an influence of the design problem itself on encouraging certain types of solutions over others. Dorst suggests that much of design research has focused on the design process, but it has paid comparatively less attention to the other two dimensions of design activities, namely, the designer and the design task. In this work, we provide a structure to guide instructors in thinking more explicitly about how design problems are constructed and presented, so they can make more informed decisions about the types of problems they give to their students. A major goal of our larger research project is to provide engineering instructors with a set of tools that they can use to improve their students’ ideation approaches and outcomes. Whereas ideation is the process of generating ideas for solving design problems, ideation flexibility is the ability of individuals to approach ideation in different ways. We are specifically interested in helping designers to flexibly adopt ideation approaches that result in ideas either representing radical change or incremental change (or both) depending upon the situation. One of the tools we are developing to enhance ideation flexibility is called the Problem Framing Profile (PFP). Different framings of a design problem may highlight the importance of different aspects within the problem, and so may encourage different approaches for solving the problem and different design outcomes. The PFP will provide a mapping between problem framing characteristics and anticipated ideation processes and outcomes. As a first step towards developing the PFP, we sought to better specify a process for creating design problems, and then for manipulating those design problems into different problem framings. We integrated Adaption-Innovation (A-I) theory with literature on design and problem solving to build a framework intended to serve as a guide for the development and framing of design problems, called the Design Problem Framework (DPF). In this paper, we present the development of the DPF and five example design problem statements that we generated by applying the DPF. We also present examples of ideation solutions in different framings of one of the design problems. In future work, we will explore our larger population’s design outcomes using these problems, which will serve as a more comprehensive test of the validity of the DPF. What prior research informs this framework? A common way to think of a design problem is as a search task. The designer must engage in a search of different possible ideas in order to ultimately select (and implement) the one idea that they believe will effectively solve the design problem. The set of all possible ideas is often referred to as the design space, and so the designer’s goal is to search through the design space. An ideal strategy might be for the designer to develop some method for exhaustively searching the entire design space, thus guaranteeing that the designer will be able to locate an optimal solution. However, for most design problems, an exhaustive search is not feasible. This is because design problems are underdetermined and ill-structured, so the design space may be extremely large, and characterizing its dimensions or boundaries may be difficult. As a result, P ge 24194.4 designers must use different strategies or approaches to search the design space for potential ideas to consider. In most cases, generating only one idea for a design task is unlikely to be an effective strategy. Novice designers are likely to make this mistake of generating only one idea, but even more experienced designers may fixate on a particular idea without considering a wider range of alternatives. Research on ideation suggests that an ideal approach includes at least some divergent thinking, in which the designer deliberately expands their search space in order to consider multiple and diverse alternative ideas. Since design problems are constrained but still underdetermined, designers may be influenced by how the design problem itself is framed. That is, even given the same underlying problem, differences in how the problem is presented to designers may impact how they approach generating alternative ideas to solve that problem. For example, research on creative idea generation suggests that providing examples to the designer may unintentionally constrain the thinking of the designer and thus limit the types of ideas they generate. However, in engineering design, when examples are chosen carefully, they can serve to broaden the solution space used to generate alternative ideas. Another way to consider the effect of framing on a designer’s ideation approach is in terms of goals. For example, a goal to “do your best” generally produces less effective performance than a more specific and difficult goal, since it may be hard to understand what a good job looks like in a specific situation. In idea generation, researchers have found an improvement when including instructions for generating a specific number of ideas (“generate 30 ideas”) versus a vague quantity goal (“generate as many ideas as you can”). But quantity is not the only goal that can be manipulated, as instructions to come up with “creative” ideas or “novel” ideas can also influence the types of ideas that designers generate. Finally, framing focuses primarily on differences in the way the problem is presented, but how different individuals interpret that framing can vary considerably. Person-situation fit theory suggests that individual factors and problem factors may work together to influence one’s approach to idea generation in a particular problem. For example, O’Hara and Sternberg review the literature on explicit instructions to be creative, and suggest that although there does appear to be a main effect of instructions on improving the quantity and proportion of creative responses, there may be an interaction with participants’ thinking styles. They describe a situation in which a task has “neutral instructio