Hostname: page-component-6b989bf9dc-476zt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-12T15:19:54.144Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Information and interaction requirements for software tools supporting analogical design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2015

Gülşen Töre Yargin*
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
Nathan Crilly
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
*
Reprint requests to: Gülşen Töre Yargın, Engineering Design Centre, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1PZ, UK. E-mail: gt336@cam.ac.uk

Abstract

One mode of creative design is for designers to draw analogies that connect the design domain (e.g., a mechanical device) to some other domain from which inspiration is drawn (e.g., a biological system). The identification and application of analogies can be supported by software tools that store, structure, present, or propose source domain stimuli from which such analogies might be constructed. For these tools to be effective and not impact the design process in negative ways, they must fit well with the information and interaction needs of their users. However, the user requirements for these tools are seldom explicitly discussed. Furthermore, the literature that supports the identification of such requirements is distributed across a number of different domains, including those that address analogical design (especially biomimetics), creativity support tools, and human–computer interaction. The requirements that these literatures propose can be divided into those that relate to the information content that the tools provide (e.g., level of abstraction or mode of representation) and those that relate to the interaction qualities that the tools support (e.g., accessibility or shareability). Examining the relationships between these requirements suggests that tool developers should focus on satisfying the key requirements of open-endedness and accessibility while managing the conflicts between the other requirements. Attention to these requirements and the relationships between them promises to yield analogical design support tools that better permit designers to identify and apply source information in their creative work.

Type
Special Issue Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Avital, M., & Te'eni, D. (2009). From generative fit to generative capacity: exploring an emerging dimension of information systems design and task performance. Information Systems Journal 19(4), 345367.Google Scholar
Ball, L.J., Ormerod, T.C., & Morley, N.J. (2004). Spontaneous analogising in engineering design: a comparative analysis of experts and novices. Design Studies 25(5), 495508.Google Scholar
Barber, J., Bhatta, S., Goel, A., Jacobson, M., Pearce, M., Penberthy, L., Shankar, M., Simpson, R., & Stroulia, E. (1992). AskJef: integration of case-based and multimedia technologies for interface design support. In Artificial Intelligence in Design'92 (Gero, J.S., Ed.), pp. 457475. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Bartocci, G., Potts, L., & Cotugno, C. (2008). Experience report: communicating ethnographic findings effectively within multidisciplinary teams and to your clients. Proc. Int. Conf. Design of Communication, SIGDOC ‘08, pp. 99–102. Lisbon: ACM.Google Scholar
Bingham, C.B., & Kahl, S.J. (2013). The process of schema emergence: assimilation, deconstruction, unitization and the plurality of analogies. Academy of Management Journal 56(1), 1434.Google Scholar
Biomimicry 3.8 Institute. (2008–2014). AskNature. Accessed http://www.asknature.org/ on July 14, 2014.Google Scholar
Blomberg, J., & Burrell, M. (2008). An ethnographic approach to design. In The Human–Computer Interaction Handbook (Sears, A., & Jacko, J.A., Eds.), pp. 965988. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Bonnardel, N. (2000). Towards understanding and supporting creativity in design: analogies in a constrained cognitive environment. Knowledge-Based Systems 13(7–8), 505513.Google Scholar
Bracewell, R., Wallace, K., Moss, M., & Knott, D. (2009). Capturing design rationale. Computer-Aided Design 41(3), 173186.Google Scholar
Candy, L., & Edmonds, E. (1995). Creativity in knowledge work: a process model and requirements for support. Proc. OZCHI'95, HCI: A Light into the Future, Vol. 95, pp. 242248. Wollongong, Australia: CHISIG.Google Scholar
Candy, L., & Edmonds, E. (1996). Creative design of the Lotus bicycle: implications for knowledge support systems research. Design Studies 17(1), 7190.Google Scholar
Candy, L., & Edmonds, E. (1997). Supporting the creative user: a criteria-based approach to interaction design. Design Studies 18(2), 185194.Google Scholar
Cardoso, C., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2011). Fixation or inspiration: creative problem solving in design. Journal of Creative Behavior 45(2), 7782.Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, A., Sarkar, P., Leelavathamma, B., & Nataraju, B. (2005). A functional representation for aiding biomimetic and artificial inspiration of new ideas. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 19(2), 113132.Google Scholar
Chan, J., Fu, K., Schunn, C., Cagan, J., Wood, K., & Kotovsky, K. (2011). On the benefits and pitfalls of analogies for innovative design: ideation performance based on analogical distance, commonness, and modality of examples. Journal of Mechanical Design 133(8), 081004.Google Scholar
Chen, C.-C., & Crilly, N. (2014). Modularity, redundancy and degeneracy: cross-domain perspectives on key design principles. Proc. 8th Annual IEEE Systems Conf., SysCon 2014, pp. 546–553. Ottawa: IEEE.Google Scholar
Cheong, H., & Shu, L. (2012). Automatic extraction of causally related functions from natural-language text for biomimetic design. Proc. ASME 2012 Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf. & Computers and Information in Engineering Conf., pp. 373–382. Chicago: ASME.Google Scholar
Cheong, H., & Shu, L. (2013). Using templates and mapping strategies to support analogical transfer in biomimetic design. Design Studies 34(6), 706728.Google Scholar
Christensen, B.T., & Schunn, C.D. (2007). The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and preinventive structure: the case of engineering design. Memory & Cognition 35(1), 2938.Google Scholar
Clarke, E. (1978). The neural circulation: the use of analogy in medicine. Medical History 22(3), 291307.Google Scholar
Crilly, N. (2010). The roles that artefacts play: technical, social and aesthetic functions. Design Studies 31(4), 311344.Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
Dahl, D.W., & Moreau, P. (2002). The influence and value of analogical thinking during new product ideation. Journal of Marketing Research 39(1), 4760.Google Scholar
Deldin, J.-M., & Schuknecht, M. (2014). The AskNature Database: enabling solutions in biomimetic design. In Biologically Inspired Design (Goel, A.K., McAdams, D., & Stone, R., Eds.), pp. 1727. London: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Diggins, T., & Tolmie, P. (2003). The “adequate” design of ethnographic outputs for practice: some explorations of the characteristics of design resources. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 7(3), 147158.Google Scholar
Dupin, J.J., & Johsua, S. (1989). Analogies and “modeling analogies” in teaching: some examples in basic electricity. Science Education 73(2), 207224.Google Scholar
Edmonds, E.A., Weakley, A., Candy, L., Fell, M., Knott, R., & Pauletto, S. (2005). The studio as laboratory: combining creative practice and digital technology research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 63(4), 452481.Google Scholar
Elam, J.J., & Mead, M. (1990). Can software influence creativity? Information Systems Research 1(1), 122.Google Scholar
Erickson, T. (1998). Towards a pattern language for interaction design. In Recovering Work Practice and Informing Systems Design (Luff, P., Hindmash, J., & Heath, C., Eds.), pp. 252261. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, G. (1993). Creativity enhancing design environments. In Modeling Creativity and Knowledge-Based Creative Design (Gero, J.S., & Maher, M.-L., Eds.), pp. 269282. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Galitz, W.O. (2007). The Essential Guide to User Interface Design: An Introduction to GUI Design Principles and Techniques. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Gaver, W.W., Beaver, J., & Benford, S. (2003). Ambiguity as a resource for design. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI'03, pp. 233–240. Ft. Lauderdale, FL: ACM.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In Similarity and Analogical Reasoning (Vosniadou, S., & Ortony, A., Eds.), pp. 199241. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goel, A.K., McAdams, D.A., & Stone, R.B. (2014). Biologically Inspired Design: Computational Methods and Tools. London: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Goel, A.K., Vattam, S., Wiltgen, B., & Helms, M. (2012). Cognitive, collaborative, conceptual and creative—four characteristics of the next generation of knowledge-based CAD systems: a study in biologically inspired design. Computer-Aided Design 44(10), 879900.Google Scholar
Goel, A.K., Vattam, S., Wiltgen, B., & Helms, M. (2014). Information-processing theories of biologically inspired design. In Biologically Inspired Design (Goel, A.K., McAdams, D., & Stone, R., Eds.), pp. 127152. London: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (2011). Avoiding design fixation: transformation and abstraction in mapping from source to target. Journal of Creative Behavior 45(2), 92100.Google Scholar
Greene, S.L. (2002). Characteristics of applications that support creativity. Communications of the ACM 45(10), 100104.Google Scholar
Halasz, F., & Moran, T.P. (1982). Analogy considered harmful. Proc. Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 383–386. Gaithersburg, MD: ACM.Google Scholar
Hastings, D., & McManus, H. (2004). A framework for understanding uncertainty and its mitigation and exploitation in complex systems. Proc. Engineering Systems Symp., pp. 1–19, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Helms, M., & Goel, A. (2013). Grounded knowledge representations for biologically inspired design. Proc. Int. Conf. Engineering Design, pp. 351–360. Seoul: ICED.Google Scholar
Helms, M., Vattam, S.S., & Goel, A.K. (2009). Biologically inspired design: process and products. Design Studies 30(5), 606622.Google Scholar
Hewett, T. (2005). Informing the design of computer-based environments to support creativity. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 63(4), 383409.Google Scholar
Hewett, T., & DePaul, J.L. (2000). Toward a human centered scientific problem solving environment. In Enabling Technologies for Computational Science (Houstis, E.N., Rice, J.R., Gallopoulos, E., & Bramley, R., Eds.), pp. 7990. Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Hey, J., Linsey, J., Agogino, A.M., & Wood, K.L. (2008). Analogies and metaphors in creative design. International Journal of Engineering Education 24(2), 283294.Google Scholar
Holland, J.H. (1986). Induction: Processes of Inference, Learning, and Discovery. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Holyoak, K.J., Gentner, D., & Kokinov, B.N. (2001). Introduction: the place of analogy in cognition. In The Analogical Mind: Perspectives From Cognitive Science (Gentner, D., Holyoak, K.J., & Kokinov, B.N., Eds.), pp. 119. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Holyoak, K.J., & Thagard, P. (1995). Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Howard, T.J., Culley, S.J., & Dekoninck, E. (2008). Describing the creative design process by the integration of engineering design and cognitive psychology literature. Design Studies 29(2), 160180.Google Scholar
Hughes, J.A., O'Brien, J., Rodden, T., Rouncefield, M., & Viller, S. (2000). Patterns of home life: informing design for domestic environments. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 4(1), 2538.Google Scholar
ISO. (n.d.). ISO 9241 Series: Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work With Visual Display Terminals (VDTs). Geneva, Switzerland: ISO.Google Scholar
Jansson, D.G., & Smith, S.M. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies 12(1), 311.Google Scholar
Johnson, G.J., Bruner, II, G.C., & Kumar, A. (2006). Interactivity and its facets revisited: theory and empirical test. Journal of Advertising 35(4), 3552.Google Scholar
Johnson, H., & Carruthers, L. (2006). Supporting creative and reflective processes. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 64(10), 9981030.Google Scholar
Kalogerakis, K., Lüthje, C., & Herstatt, C. (2010). Developing innovations based on analogies: experience from design and engineering consultants. Journal of Product Innovation Management 27(3), 418436.Google Scholar
Knippers, J., & Speck, T. (2012). Design and construction principles in nature and architecture. Bioinspiration & Biomimetics 7(1), 015002.Google Scholar
Kules, B. (2005). Supporting creativity with search tools. In NSF Workshop Report on Creativity Support Tools (Shneiderman, B., Fischer, G., Hewett, T., Eds.), pp. 5364. Washington, DC: NSF.Google Scholar
Kules, B., & Shneiderman, B. (2008). Users can change their web search tactics: design guidelines for categorized overviews. Information Processing & Management 44(2), 463484.Google Scholar
Kuniavsky, M. (2003). Observing the User Experience: A Practitioner's Guide to User Research. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Lepora, N.F., Verschure, P., & Prescott, T.J. (2013). The state of the art in biomimetics. Bioinspiration & Biomimetics 8(1), 013001.Google Scholar
Linsey, J.S., Markman, A.B., & Wood, K.L. (2012). Design by analogy: a study of the wordtree method for problem re-representation. Journal of Mechanical Design 134(4), 041009.Google Scholar
Linsey, J.S., Wood, K.L., & Markman, A.B. (2008). Modality and representation in analogy. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 22(2), 85100.Google Scholar
Liu, Y., & Shrum, L. (2002). What is interactivity and is it always such a good thing? Implications of definition, person, and situation for the influence of interactivity on advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising 31(4), 5364.Google Scholar
Maher, M.L., Balachandran, M., & Zhang, D.M. (1995). Case-Based Reasoning in Design. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mak, T.W., & Shu, L.H. (2004). Abstraction of biological analogies for design. CIRP Annals—Manufacturing Technology 53(1), 117120.Google Scholar
Mak, T.W., & Shu, L.H. (2008). Using descriptions of biological phenomena for idea generation. Research in Engineering Design 19(1), 2128.Google Scholar
Nagel, J.K., Nagel, R.L., Stone, R.B., & McAdams, D.A. (2010). Function-based, biologically inspired concept generation. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 24(4), 521535.Google Scholar
Nielsen, J. (1994). Heuristic evaluation. In Usability Inspection Methods (Nielsen, J., & Mack, R.L., Eds.), pp. 2562. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Nijstad, B.A., Stroebe, W., & Lodewijkx, H.F. (2002). Cognitive stimulation and interference in groups: exposure effects in an idea generation task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 38(6), 535544.Google Scholar
Nørgaard, M., & Hornbæk, K. (2009). Exploring the value of usability feedback formats. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 25(1), 4974.Google Scholar
Oppenheimer, R. (1956). Analogy in science. American Psychologist 11(3), 127135.Google Scholar
Pearce, M., Goel, A.K., Kolodner, J.L., Zimring, C., Sentosa, L., & Billington, R. (1992). Case-based design support: a case study in architectural design. IEEE Expert 7(5), 1420.Google Scholar
Perttula, M., & Sipilä, P. (2007). The idea exposure paradigm in design idea generation. Journal of Engineering Design 18(1), 93102.Google Scholar
Ramey, J., Robinson, C., Carlevato, D., & Hansing, R. (1992). Communicating user needs to designers: hypermedia-supported requirements documents. Proc. Int. Professional Communication Conf., IPCC'92, pp. 241–247, Sante Fe, NM, September 29–October 3.Google Scholar
Resnick, M., Myers, B., Nakakoji, K., Shneiderman, B., Pausch, R., Selker, T., & Eisenberg, M. (2005). Design principles for tools to support creative thinking. In NSF Workshop Report on Creativity Support Tools (Shneiderman, B., Fischer, G., Hewett, T., Eds.), pp. 2536. Washington, DC: NSF.Google Scholar
Sarkar, P., & Chakrabarti, A. (2008). The effect of representation of triggers on design outcomes. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 22(2), 101116.Google Scholar
Shneiderman, B. (1997). Direct manipulation for comprehensible, predictable and controllable user interfaces. Proc. Int. Conf. Intelligent User Interfaces, pp. 33–39. Orlando, FL: ACM.Google Scholar
Shneiderman, B. (2000). Creating creativity: user interfaces for supporting innovation. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction 7(1), 114138.Google Scholar
Schneiderman, B., & Plaisant, C. (2005). Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human–Computer Interaction, 4th ed.Reading, MA: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Shu, L. (2010). A natural-language approach to biomimetic design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 24(4), 507519.Google Scholar
Spiro, R.J., Feltovich, P.J., Coulson, R.L., & Anderson, D.K. (1989). Multiple analogies for complex concepts: antidotes for analogy-induced misconception in advanced knowledge acquisition. In Similarity and Analogical Reasoning (Vosniadou, S., & Ortony, A., Eds.), pp. 498531. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stacey, M., & Eckert, C. (2003). Against ambiguity. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 12(2), 153183.Google Scholar
Terry, M., & Mynatt, E.D. (2002). Recognizing creative needs in user interface design. Proc. Conf. Creativity & Cognition, pp. 38–44. Loughborough: ACM.Google Scholar
Töre Yargın, G. (2013). Developing a model for effective communication of user research findings to the design process. PhD Thesis. Middle East Technical University.Google Scholar
Töre Yargın, G., & Erbuğ, Ç. (2012). Information system for visualizing user research to lead innovation. Proc. DMI 2012 Int. Research Conf. (Bohemia, E., Liedtka, J., Rieple, A., Eds.), pp. 71–85. Boston: DMI.Google Scholar
Vattam, S.S., & Goel, A.K. (2011). Foraging for inspiration: understanding and supporting the online information seeking practices of biologically inspired designers. Proc. ASME 2011 Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf. Computers and Information in Engineering Conf., pp. 177–186. Denver, CO: ASME.Google Scholar
Verhaegen, P.-A., D'hondt, J., Vandevenne, D., Dewulf, S., & Duflou, J.R. (2011). Identifying candidates for design-by-analogy. Computers in Industry 62(4), 446459.Google Scholar
Vermaas, P.E., & Eckert, C. (2013). My functional description is better! Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 27(3), 187190.Google Scholar
Vincent, J.F., Bogatyreva, O.A., Bogatyrev, N.R., Bowyer, A., & Pahl, A.-K. (2006). Biomimetics: its practice and theory. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 3(9), 471482.Google Scholar
Vosniadou, S., & Ortony, A. (1989). Similarity and analogical reasoning: a synthesis. In Similarity and Analogical Reasoning (Vosniadou, S., & Ortony, A., Eds.), pp. 117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, J.O., Rosen, D., Nelson, B.A., & Yen, J. (2010). The effects of biological examples in idea generation. Design Studies 31(2), 169186.Google Scholar
Yamamoto, Y., & Nakakoji, K. (2005). Interaction design of tools for fostering creativity in the early stages of information design. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 63(4), 513535.Google Scholar
Zahner, D., Nickerson, J.V., Tversky, B., Corter, J.E., & Ma, J. (2010). A fix for fixation? Rerepresenting and abstracting as creative processes in the design of information systems. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 24(2), 231244.Google Scholar