Exploring the Effects of Problem Framing on Solution Shifts: A Case Study

The way design problems are presented may influence an engineer’s ideation process, and eventually, the design outcomes. We aimed to explore the ways in which pre-engineering students shift their design ideas based on different framings of design problems. We evaluated ideas with respect to the metric of paradigm-relatedness, which refers to the extent to which an idea works within the explicitly stated and commonly understood bounds of a problem, versus moves beyond those bounds. Thirteen prospective engineering students participated in the study. Students were first given a problem statement framed in a way that didn’t encourage any particular type of solution. The students were asked to generate solutions to the problem using visual and verbal depictions. Subsequently, they were given a second problem framed either to encourage practical solutions based on pre-existing designs or framed to encourage radical solutions not based on pre-existing designs. Ideas were coded as either paradigm-preserving or paradigm-modifying. We identified students whose ideas shifted from more of one type to more of another from their first ideation session to their second, as well as students whose ideas remained consistent. We analyzed their generated idea sets and reflection questionnaires to describe the influence of the framed design problem statements on their ideation approaches. The findings illustrate that problem framing can influence the paradigm-relatedness of ideas generated in a design tasks, both in more adaptive directions and in more innovative directions. However, our findings also illustrate that problem framing is not always successful in causing an individual to shift in their ideation approach, and so additional factors such as individuals’ cognitive styles should also be taken into account.

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

[2]  Chris Rogers,et al.  The benefits of model building in teaching engineering design , 2010 .

[3]  Dennis R. Brophy Comparing the Attributes, Activities, and Performance of Divergent, Convergent, and Combination Thinkers , 2001 .

[4]  Donald A. Schön Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions , 1987 .

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

[6]  Seda Yilmaz,et al.  Investigating Impacts on the Ideation Flexibility of Engineers , 2014 .

[7]  Madara Ogot,et al.  Engineering Design: A Project-Based Introduction , 2004 .

[8]  Monica J. Garfield,et al.  The Creative Process: The Effects of Group Memory on Individual Idea Generation , 1999, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[9]  William J. Abernathy,et al.  Patterns of Industrial Innovation , 1978 .

[10]  Teresa M. Amabile,et al.  Assessing the Work Environment for Creativity , 1996 .

[11]  Yan Jin,et al.  Impact of Mental Iteration on Concept Generation , 2006 .

[12]  J. P. Guilford,et al.  Varieties of Divergent Production. , 1984 .

[13]  J. Dewey,et al.  How We Think , 2009 .

[14]  Susan P. Besemer,et al.  Analysis of Creative Products: Review and Synthesis* , 1981 .

[15]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Incremental and Radical Innovation: Design Research vs. Technology and Meaning Change , 2014, Design Issues.

[16]  Paul Hyland,et al.  Driving Innovation in Logistics: Case Studies in Distribution Centres , 2004 .

[17]  Thomas Lee Rodgers,et al.  Identifying Quality, Novel, and Creative Ideas: Constructs and Scales for Idea Evaluation , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[18]  Monica J. Garfield,et al.  Modifying Paradigms: Individual Differences, Creativity Techniques and Exposure to Ideas in Group Idea Generation , 2000, Inf. Syst. Res..

[19]  I. Levin,et al.  A New Look at Framing Effects: Distribution of Effect Sizes, Individual Differences, and Independence of Types of Effects , 2002 .

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

[21]  Seda Yilmaz,et al.  Ideation Variety in Mechanical Design: Examining the Effects of Cognitive Style and Design Heuristics , 2015 .

[22]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  An Examination of the Impact of Stimuli Type and GSS Structure on Creativity: Brainstorming Versus Non-Brainstorming Techniques in a GSS Environment , 2002, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[23]  Yan Jin,et al.  Study of mental iteration in different design situations , 2006 .

[24]  Christina E. Shalley,et al.  Effects of Productivity Goals, Creativity Goals, and Personal Discretion on Individual Creativity , 1991 .

[25]  Vincent R. Brown,et al.  Directing idea generation using brainstorming with specific novelty goals , 2011 .

[26]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[27]  Dwayne Spradlin,et al.  Are you solving the right problem? , 2016, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[28]  Amaresh Chakrabarti,et al.  Towards an ‘ideal’ approach for concept generation , 2003 .

[29]  Shanna R. Daly,et al.  The Design Problem Framework: Using Adaption-Innovation Theory to Construct Design Problem Statements , 2014 .

[30]  Robert C. Litchfield,et al.  Brainstorming rules as assigned goals: Does brainstorming really improve idea quantity? , 2009 .

[31]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Design cognition: results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity , 2016 .

[32]  J. W. Getzels,et al.  Discovery-oriented behavior and the originality of creative products: a study with artists. , 1971, Journal of personality and social psychology.