Design cognition differences when using unstructured, partially structured, and structured concept generation creativity techniques

This paper presents an experimental study of measuring and comparing design cognition while using different concept generation creativity techniques in a collaborative engineering design setting. Eleven design teams were given the same three design tasks, respectively, using an unstructured concept generation technique (brainstorming), a partially structured technique (morphological analysis), and a structured technique (TRIZ). A protocol analysis was carried out using the function–behavior–structure ontologically based coding scheme. This study showed that the students' design cognition was affected by the degree of structuredness of the concept generation creativity techniques they applied in their designing. The more structured a concept generation creativity technique is, the more likely that designers using this technique tend to focus more on problem-related aspects of designing, i.e., design goals and requirements. Results also indicate that the influence of the structuredness of concept generation creativity techniques mainly affects the early parts of the designing process, and differences between different design conditions exhibit an overall commonality of designing.

[1]  John S. Gero,et al.  An approach to the analysis of design protocols , 1998 .

[2]  John S. Gero,et al.  Commonalities across Designing: Empirical Results , 2014 .

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

[4]  G. S. Altshuller,et al.  40 principles : TRIZ keys to innovation / by GenrichAltshuller , 2005 .

[5]  John S. Gero,et al.  Exploring the Effect of Design Education on the Design Cognition of Mechanical Engineering Students , 2011 .

[6]  G. S. Alʹtshuller,et al.  The Innovation Algorithm:TRIZ, systematic innovation and technical creativity , 1999 .

[7]  John S. Gero,et al.  Acquiring information from linkography in protocol studies of designing , 2008 .

[8]  Turkka Keinonen,et al.  Product concept design : a review of the conceptual design of products in industry , 2006 .

[9]  Yasemin Afacan,et al.  Assessing creativity in design education: Analysis of creativity factors in the first-year design studio , 2012 .

[10]  Morteza Pourmohamadi,et al.  LINKOGRAPHER: AN ANALYSIS TOOL TO STUDY DESIGN PROTOCOLS BASED ON FBS CODING SCHEME , 2011 .

[11]  A. Osborn.  Applied imagination : principles and procedures of creative problem-solving , 1957 .

[12]  Mary Lou Maher,et al.  Co-evolution as a computational and cognitive model of design , 2003 .

[13]  J. Shah,et al.  Collaborative Sketching (C-Sketch)--An Idea Generation Technique for Engineering Design. , 2001 .

[14]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product Design , 1994 .

[15]  John S. Gero,et al.  The Situated Function - Behaviour - Structure Framework , 2002, AID.

[16]  David Silverstein,et al.  Insourcing Innovation: How to Achieve Competitive Excellence Using TRIZ , 2007 .

[17]  John S. Gero,et al.  EXPLORING THE EFFECT OF DESIGN EDUCATION ON THE DESIGN COGNITION OF TWO ENGINEERING MAJORS , 2012 .

[18]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Creativity in Design: Analyzing and Modeling the Creative Leap , 2017 .

[19]  J. Gero.  Generalizing Design Cognition Research , 2010 .

[20]  R. Sternberg,et al.  The Cambridge handbook of creativity. , 2010 .

[21]  Yukari Nagai,et al.  Discussion on Direction of Design Creativity Research (Part 1) - New Definition of Design and Creativity: Beyond the Problem-Solving Paradigm , 2011 .

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

[23]  Turkka Keinonen.  Introduction to Concept Design , 2006 .

[24]  Amaresh Chakrabarti,et al.  Comparison of the degree of creativity in the design outcomes using different design methods , 2012 .

[25]  John S. Gero,et al.  The Influence of Design Methods on the Design Process: Effect of Use of Scenario, Brainstorming, and Synectics on Designing , 2012 .

[26]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Solution driven versus problem driven design: strategies and outcomes , 2006 .

[27]  Amaresh Chakrabarti,et al.  Assessment of the Relationships Among Design Methods, Design Activities, and Creativity , 2012 .

[28]  T. Ritchey,et al.  Problem structuring using computer-aided morphological analysis , 2006, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[29]  Gerald F. Smith.  Idea‐Generation Techniques: A Formulary of Active Ingredients , 1998 .

[30]  John S. Gero,et al.  Exploring the Effect of Design Education on the Design Cognition of Sophomore Engineering Students , 2012 .

[31]  Sungwoo Moon,et al.  Structured Idea Creation for Improving the Value of Construction Design , 2012 .

[32]  H.H.C.M. Christiaans,et al.  Creativity in design: the role of domain knowledge in designing , 1992 .

[33]  Jami J. Shah,et al.  Evaluation of idea generation methods for conceptual design: Effectiveness metrics and design of experiments , 2000 .

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

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

[36]  D A McConathy,et al.  Theories of creativity. , 1990, The Journal of biocommunication.

[37]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product Design (4th ed.) , 2008 .

[38]  Michael Joseph French,et al.  Conceptual Design for Engineers , 1985 .

[39]  W. Sander,et al.  Experimental phased array radar ELRA with extended flexibility , 1990 .

[40]  Hao Jiang,et al.  Exploring Designing Styles Using a Problem–Solution Division , 2014 .

[41]  T. Taura,et al.  Concept blending and dissimilarity: factors for creative concept generation process , 2009 .

[42]  Willemien Visser,et al.  Design: One, but in different forms , 2007, ArXiv.

[43]  David G. Ullman,et al.  The Mechanical Design Process , 1992 .