Measuring and Optimizing Design Variety Using Herfindahl Index

In this paper, we propose a new design variety metric based on the Herfindahl index. We also propose a practical procedure for comparing variety metrics via the construction of ground truth datasets from pairwise comparisons by experts. Using two new datasets, we show that this new variety measure aligns with human ratings more than some existing and commonly used treebased metrics. This metric also has three main advantages over existing metrics: a) It is a super-modular function, which enables us to optimize design variety using a polynomial time greedy algorithm. b) The parametric nature of this metric allows us to fit the metric to better represent variety for new domains. c) It has higher sensitivity in distinguishing between variety of sets of randomly selected designs than existing methods. Overall, our results shed light on some qualities that good design variety metrics should possess and the non-trivial challenges associated with collecting the data needed to measure those qualities. ∗Address all correspondence to this author. NOMENCLATURE SVS Design variety metric proposed in Shah et al. [1] NM Design variety metric proposed by Nelson et al. [2] HHI Herfindahl–Hirschman Index [3]

[1]  Elizabeth M. Starkey,et al.  Are Creativity and Self-Efficacy at Odds? An Exploration in Variations of Product Dissection in Engineering Education , 2018, Journal of Mechanical Design.

[2]  Shanna R. Daly,et al.  A Comparison of Variety Metrics in Engineering Design , 2017 .

[3]  R. Sternberg Handbook of Creativity: Subject Index , 1998 .

[4]  M. L. Fisher,et al.  An analysis of approximations for maximizing submodular set functions—I , 1978, Math. Program..

[5]  David W. Rosen,et al.  Refined metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness , 2009 .

[6]  Jef R. Peeters,et al.  Refinements to the variety metric for idea evaluation , 2013 .

[7]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  On the benefits and pitfalls of analogies for innovative design : Ideation performance based on analogical distance, commonness, and modality of examples , 2011 .

[8]  A. Cropley Defining and measuring creativity: Are creativity tests worth using? , 2000 .

[9]  D. Shatz Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry , 2004 .

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

[11]  Andreas Krause,et al.  Submodular Function Maximization , 2014, Tractability.

[12]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Prototyping dynamics: sharing multiple designs improves exploration, group rapport, and results , 2011, CHI.

[13]  Alice M. Agogino,et al.  Automatically Inferring Metrics for Design Creativity , 2013 .

[14]  Mark Fuge,et al.  Interpreting Idea Maps: Pairwise Comparisons Reveal What Makes Ideas Novel , 2019, Journal of Mechanical Design.

[15]  Selcuk Acar,et al.  Latency predicts category switch in divergent thinking. , 2017 .

[16]  Steven Dow,et al.  Comparing Different Sensemaking Approaches for Large-Scale Ideation , 2016, CHI.

[17]  Joseph H. Greenberg,et al.  The Measurement of Linguistic Diversity , 1956 .

[18]  Brigitte Moench,et al.  Engineering Design A Systematic Approach , 2016 .

[19]  P. Kline The New Psychometrics: Science, Psychology and Measurement , 1998 .

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

[21]  U. Feige,et al.  Maximizing Non-monotone Submodular Functions , 2011 .

[22]  S. Rhoades The Herfindahl-Hirschman index , 1993 .

[23]  A. Hirschman THE PATERNITY OF AN INDEX , 1964 .

[24]  Arnold P. O. S. Vermeeren,et al.  Measuring and comparing novelty for design solutions generated by young children through different design methods , 2016 .

[25]  Julie S. Linsey,et al.  Design-by-analogy and representation in innovative engineering concept generation , 2007 .

[26]  Irem Y. Tumer,et al.  A comparison of creativity and innovation metrics and sample validation through in-class design projects , 2013 .

[27]  A. Anastasi,et al.  A biographical inventory for identifying creativity in adolescent bys. , 1968, The Journal of applied psychology.

[28]  M. Twomey,et al.  Limitations in validating emergency department triage scales , 2007, Emergency Medicine Journal.

[29]  Teresa M. Amabile,et al.  Creativity In Context: Update To The Social Psychology Of Creativity , 1996 .

[30]  Jef R. Peeters,et al.  Refined Metrics for Measuring Novelty in Ideation , 2010 .

[31]  Arthur B. Markman,et al.  An Experimental Study of Group Idea Generation Techniques: Understanding the Roles of Idea Representation and Viewing Methods , 2011 .

[32]  Teresa M. Amabile,et al.  Perspectives on the Social Psychology of Creativity , 2012 .

[33]  E. H. Simpson Measurement of Diversity , 1949, Nature.

[34]  E. Paul Torrance,et al.  Predictive Validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking , 1972 .

[35]  M. Mumford,et al.  Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. , 1988 .

[36]  C. Gini Variabilita e Mutabilita. , 1913 .

[37]  Trina C. Kershaw,et al.  Multiple causes of difficulty in insight: the case of the nine-dot problem. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

[39]  Stevan Harnad,et al.  Validating research performance metrics against peer rankings , 2008 .