On the benefits and pitfalls of analogies for innovative design : Ideation performance based on analogical distance, commonness, and modality of examples

Drawing inspiration from examples by analogy can be a powerful tool for innovative design during conceptual ideation but also carries the risk of negative design outcomes (e.g., design fixation), depending on key properties of examples. Understanding these properties is critical for effectively harnessing the power of analogy. The current research explores how variations in analogical distance, commonness, and representation modality influence the effects of examples on conceptual ideation. Senior-level engineering students generated solution concepts for an engineering design problem with or without provided examples drawn from the U.S. Patent database. Examples were crossed by analogical distance (near-field vs. far-field), commonness (more vs. less-common), and modality (picture vs. text). A control group that received no examples was included for comparison. Effects were examined on a mixture of ideation process and product variables. Our results show positive effects of far-field and less-common examples on novelty and variability in quality of solution concepts. These effects are not modulated by modality. However, detailed analyses of process variables suggest divergent inspiration pathways for far-field vs. less-common examples. Additionally, the combination of far-field, less-common examples resulted in more novel concepts than in the control group. These findings suggest guidelines for the effective design and implementation of design-by-analogy methods, particularly a focus on far-field, less-common examples during the ideation process. © 2011 American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

[1]  Arthur B. Markman,et al.  Representing Analogies: Increasing the Probability of Innovation , 2006 .

[2]  Kristin L. Wood,et al.  Tools for Innovation , 2009 .

[3]  D. Gentner,et al.  Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. , 1997 .

[4]  David W. Rosen,et al.  The effects of biological examples in idea generation , 2010 .

[5]  K. Duncker,et al.  On problem-solving , 1945 .

[6]  W. Gordon.  Synectics: The Development of Creative Capacity , 1961 .

[7]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  MAC/FAC: A Model of Similarity-Based Retrieval , 1995, Cogn. Sci..

[8]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Implications of the ACT-R Learning Theory: No Magic Bullets , 2000 .

[9]  Robert W. Weisberg,et al.  On “Out-of-the-Box” Thinking in Creativity , 2009 .

[10]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  The role of timing and analogical similarity in the stimulation of idea generation in design , 2008 .

[11]  Jami J. Shah,et al.  INFLUENCE OF DESIGN REPRESENTATION ON EFFECTIVENESS OF IDEA GENERATION , 2001 .

[12]  Michael C. Quick,et al.  Invention and evolution — design in nature and engineering , 1995 .

[13]  K. Wood,et al.  QUANTITATIVE MEASURES FOR DESIGN BY ANALOGY , 2000 .

[14]  S. Ohlsson.  Information-processing explanations of insight and related phenomena , 1992 .

[15]  John S. Gero,et al.  Effects of examples on the results of a design activity , 1992, Knowl. Based Syst..

[16]  L. R. Novick.  Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[17]  Richard Reviewer-Granger.  Unified Theories of Cognition , 1991, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[18]  S. Ohlsson,et al.  Constraint relaxation and chunk decomposition in insight problem solving , 1999 .

[19]  Gabriela Goldschmidt,et al.  Expertise and the use of visual analogy: implications for design education , 1999 .

[20]  R. Crawford,et al.  Influences And Interests In Humanitarian Engineering , 2010 .

[21]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Structure-Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy , 1983, Cogn. Sci..

[22]  M. Boden.  The creative mind : myths & mechanisms , 1991 .

[23]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  THE MIND'S EYE IN CHESS , 1988 .

[24]  K. Ishibashi.  Exploring the Effect of Copying Incomprehensible Exemplars on Creative Drawings , 2006 .

[25]  Simon Szykman,et al.  A functional basis for engineering design: Reconciling and evolving previous efforts , 2002 .

[26]  Bo T. Christensen,et al.  The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and preinventive structure: the case of engineering design , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[27]  Craig A. Kaplan,et al.  In search of insight , 1990, Cognitive Psychology.

[28]  Paul J. Feltovich,et al.  Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices , 1981, Cogn. Sci..

[29]  James J. Duderstadt,et al.  Engineering Research and America's Future: Meeting the Challenges of a Global Economy , 2005 .

[30]  Arthur B. Markman,et al.  Supporting Innovation by Promoting Analogical Reasoning , 2009 .

[31]  Kristin L. Wood,et al.  Integrating Service-Oriented Design Projects in the Engineering Curriculum , 2002 .

[32]  D. Dahl,et al.  The Influence and Value of Analogical Thinking during New Product Ideation , 2002 .

[33]  K. Dunbar,et al.  How analogies are generated: The roles of structural and superficial similarity , 2000, Memory & cognition.

[34]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Analogical problem solving , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[35]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  Idea Generation and the Quality of the Best Idea , 2009, Manag. Sci..

[36]  Willy C. Shih,et al.  Restoring American Competitiveness , 2009 .

[37]  Amaresh Chakrabarti,et al.  A functional representation for aiding biomimetic and artificial inspiration of new ideas , 2005, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[38]  L. H. Shu,et al.  Biomimetic Concept Generation Applied to Design for Remanufacture , 2002 .

[39]  M. Chi,et al.  Network representation of a child's dinosaur knowledge. , 1983 .

[40]  R. Adamson.  Functional fixedness as related to problem solving; a repetition of three experiments. , 1952, Journal of experimental psychology.

[41]  N. Maier.  Reasoning in humans. II. The solution of a problem and its appearance in consciousness. , 1931 .

[42]  K. Kotovsky,et al.  The influence of open goals on the acquisition of problem-relevant information. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[43]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  The Design of Things to Come: How Ordinary People Create Extraordinary Products , 2005 .

[44]  Steven M. Smith,et al.  Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness , 2003 .

[45]  K. Dunbar.  How scientists think: On-line creativity and conceptual change in science. , 1997 .

[46]  Arthur B. Markman,et al.  Modality and representation in analogy , 2008, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[47]  Ashok K. Goel.  Design, Analogy, and Creativity , 1997, IEEE Expert.