Abstraction framework to support students in learning creative conceptual design

Learning systematic conceptual design approaches could be difficult for students who are asked to adapt their intuitive design rationale to more abstract and divergent thinking styles. The purpose of this study is to propose a conceptual design approach with a well-defined reference framework and procedure to help students to gradually move toward concreteness and to explore the design space.,The so-called problem–solution network approach has been taken as a reference and upgraded with a specific framework to manage abstraction levels. A first didactical application of the proposal is described, and specific feedbacks from students have been collected by means of an anonymous survey.,Despite the limited course time allotted for the argument, students’ feedbacks revealed that the proposed abstraction framework is useful to learn systematic conceptual design and to support the understanding of creative design thinking.,The proposal has been applied on a single class of MS engineering students in a course where only a part of the available time was allotted to conceptual design activities. However, the received positive feedbacks are encouraging and allow pushing toward more comprehensive applications and investigations.,The proposal shown in this paper uses acknowledged concepts of abstraction and function to propose a new integrated framework to manage abstraction levels in problem solving activities. The framework has been implemented in a very recent conceptual design approach based on problem–solution co-evolution, which has been proposed to overcome the flaws ascribed to classical function-based methods.

[1]  Damien Motte,et al.  Design methods and factors influencing their uptake in product development companies: A review , 2014 .

[2]  Victor Fey,et al.  Innovation on Demand: New Product Development Using TRIZ , 2005 .

[3]  Moshe Barak,et al.  Teaching engineering and technology: cognitive, knowledge and problem-solving taxonomies , 2013 .

[4]  Diyar Akay,et al.  Conceptual design evaluation using interval type-2 fuzzy information axiom , 2011, Comput. Ind..

[5]  Pieter E. Vermaas,et al.  My functional description is better! , 2013, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[6]  Albert Albers,et al.  Different notions of function: results from an experiment on the analysis of an existing product , 2011 .

[7]  Erasto Elias Enhancing the front-end phase of design methodology , 2006 .

[8]  Marco Tomassini,et al.  Exploiting TRIZ Tools for enhancing systematic conceptual design activities , 2018 .

[9]  Herbert Birkhofer,et al.  An Extensive and Detailed View of the Application of Design Methods and Methodology in Industry , 2005 .

[10]  Benoit Weil,et al.  Design theories as languages of the unknown: insights from the German roots of systematic design (1840–1960) , 2013 .

[11]  Gabriela Goldschmidt,et al.  Avoiding Design Fixation: Transformation and Abstraction in Mapping from Source to Target , 2011 .

[12]  Hao Jiang,et al.  DOES USING DIFFERENT CONCEPT GENERATION TECHNIQUES CHANGE THE DESIGN COGNITION OF DESIGN STUDENTS , 2012 .

[13]  Pieter E. Vermaas,et al.  The coexistence of engineering meanings of function: Four responses and their methodological implications , 2013, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[14]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  Product Design and Development , 1995 .

[15]  Judith Kelner,et al.  WHAT'S THE BENEFIT OF PROBLEM EXPLORATION? , 2016 .

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

[17]  Luis A. Vasconcelos,et al.  Inspiration and fixation: Questions, methods, findings, and challenges , 2016 .

[18]  I. C. Wright,et al.  The Utilization of Product Development Methods: A Survey of UK Industry , 1996 .

[19]  John S. Gero,et al.  Design and other types of fixation , 1996 .

[20]  Lorenzo Fiorineschi,et al.  A new conceptual design approach for overcoming the flaws of functional decomposition and morphology , 2016 .

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

[22]  W. Ernst Eder,et al.  Design Modeling-A Design Science Approach (and Why Does Industry Not Use It?) , 1998 .

[23]  R. B. Frost Why Does Industry Ignore Design Science , 1999 .

[24]  G. Schleyer,et al.  Peer tutoring in conceptual design , 2005 .

[25]  Wageeh Boles,et al.  Barriers to student success in engineering education , 2017 .

[26]  Nathan McNeill,et al.  Undergraduate Students' Beliefs about Engineering Problem Solving , 2016 .

[27]  Sam J Williamson,et al.  Effective practices for the concept design of electromechanical systems , 2016 .

[28]  Yoji Akao,et al.  Quality Function Deployment : Integrating Customer Requirements into Product Design , 1990 .

[29]  Y.-M. Deng,et al.  Function and behavior representation in conceptual mechanical design , 2002, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[30]  Fumihiko Kimura,et al.  Design methodologies: Industrial and educational applications , 2009 .

[31]  S. Hart,et al.  Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research , 1988 .

[32]  Elizabeth M. Starkey,et al.  Abandoning creativity: The evolution of creative ideas in engineering design course projects , 2016 .

[33]  Amaresh Chakrabarti,et al.  A scheme for functional reasoning in conceptual design , 2001 .

[34]  Kurt Becker,et al.  Expert vs. novice: Problem decomposition/recomposition in engineering design , 2014, 2014 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL).

[35]  Petra Badke-Schaub,et al.  METHODS IN PRACTICE – A STUDY ON REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER OF DESIGN METHODS , 2008 .

[36]  Sandra G. Hart,et al.  Nasa-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX); 20 Years Later , 2006 .

[37]  F. Zwicky Discovery, Invention, Research through the morphological approach , 1969 .

[38]  Ehud Kroll,et al.  Design theory and conceptual design: contrasting functional decomposition and morphology with parameter analysis , 2013 .

[39]  Ch Kees Dorst,et al.  On the conceptual framework of John Gero's FBS-model and the prescriptive aims of design methodology , 2007 .

[40]  Amaresh Chakrabarti,et al.  Assessing design creativity , 2011 .

[41]  W. Ernst Eder,et al.  Design Engineering: A Manual for Enhanced Creativity , 2007 .

[42]  John S. Gero,et al.  Design Prototypes: A Knowledge Representation Schema for Design , 1990, AI Mag..