Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

Information and interaction requirements for software tools supporting analogical design

  • Gülşen Töre Yargin (a1) and Nathan Crilly (a1)

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.

Corresponding author
Reprint requests to: Gülşen Töre Yargın, Engineering Design Centre, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1PZ, UK. E-mail:
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

M. Avital , & D. Te'eni (2009). From generative fit to generative capacity: exploring an emerging dimension of information systems design and task performance. Information Systems Journal 19(4), 345367.

L.J. Ball , T.C. Ormerod , & N.J. Morley (2004). Spontaneous analogising in engineering design: a comparative analysis of experts and novices. Design Studies 25(5), 495508.

C.B. Bingham , & S.J. Kahl (2013). The process of schema emergence: assimilation, deconstruction, unitization and the plurality of analogies. Academy of Management Journal 56(1), 1434.

N. Bonnardel (2000). Towards understanding and supporting creativity in design: analogies in a constrained cognitive environment. Knowledge-Based Systems 13(7–8), 505513.

R. Bracewell , K. Wallace , M. Moss , & D. Knott (2009). Capturing design rationale. Computer-Aided Design 41(3), 173186.

L. Candy , & E. Edmonds (1996). Creative design of the Lotus bicycle: implications for knowledge support systems research. Design Studies 17(1), 7190.

L. Candy , & E. Edmonds (1997). Supporting the creative user: a criteria-based approach to interaction design. Design Studies 18(2), 185194.

C. Cardoso , & P. Badke-Schaub (2011). Fixation or inspiration: creative problem solving in design. Journal of Creative Behavior 45(2), 7782.

A. Chakrabarti , P. Sarkar , B. Leelavathamma , & B. Nataraju (2005). A functional representation for aiding biomimetic and artificial inspiration of new ideas. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 19(2), 113132.

J. Chan , K. Fu , C. Schunn , J. Cagan , K. Wood , & K. Kotovsky (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.

H. Cheong , & L. Shu (2013). Using templates and mapping strategies to support analogical transfer in biomimetic design. Design Studies 34(6), 706728.

B.T. Christensen , & C.D. Schunn (2007). The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and preinventive structure: the case of engineering design. Memory & Cognition 35(1), 2938.

N. Crilly (2010). The roles that artefacts play: technical, social and aesthetic functions. Design Studies 31(4), 311344.

M. Csikszentmihalyi (1996). Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: Harper Perennial.

D.W. Dahl , & P. Moreau (2002). The influence and value of analogical thinking during new product ideation. Journal of Marketing Research 39(1), 4760.

J.-M. Deldin , & M. Schuknecht (2014). The AskNature Database: enabling solutions in biomimetic design. In Biologically Inspired Design ( A.K. Goel , D. McAdams , & R. Stone , Eds.), pp. 1727. London: Springer–Verlag.

T. Diggins , & P. Tolmie (2003). The “adequate” design of ethnographic outputs for practice: some explorations of the characteristics of design resources. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 7(3), 147158.

J.J. Dupin , & S. Johsua (1989). Analogies and “modeling analogies” in teaching: some examples in basic electricity. Science Education 73(2), 207224.

E.A. Edmonds , A. Weakley , L. Candy , M. Fell , R. Knott , & S. Pauletto (2005). The studio as laboratory: combining creative practice and digital technology research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 63(4), 452481.

J.J. Elam , & M. Mead (1990). Can software influence creativity? Information Systems Research 1(1), 122.

A.K. Goel , D.A. McAdams , & R.B. Stone (2014). Biologically Inspired Design: Computational Methods and Tools. London: Springer–Verlag.

A.K. Goel , S. Vattam , B. Wiltgen , & M. Helms (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.

A.K. Goel , S. Vattam , B. Wiltgen , & M. Helms (2014). Information-processing theories of biologically inspired design. In Biologically Inspired Design ( A.K. Goel , D. McAdams , & R. Stone , Eds.), pp. 127152. London: Springer–Verlag.

G. Goldschmidt (2011). Avoiding design fixation: transformation and abstraction in mapping from source to target. Journal of Creative Behavior 45(2), 92100.

S.L. Greene (2002). Characteristics of applications that support creativity. Communications of the ACM 45(10), 100104.

M. Helms , S.S. Vattam , & A.K. Goel (2009). Biologically inspired design: process and products. Design Studies 30(5), 606622.

T. Hewett (2005). Informing the design of computer-based environments to support creativity. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 63(4), 383409.

T. Hewett , & J.L. DePaul (2000). Toward a human centered scientific problem solving environment. In Enabling Technologies for Computational Science ( E.N. Houstis , J.R. Rice , E. Gallopoulos , & R. Bramley , Eds.), pp. 7990. Boston: Kluwer.

T.J. Howard , S.J. Culley , & E. Dekoninck (2008). Describing the creative design process by the integration of engineering design and cognitive psychology literature. Design Studies 29(2), 160180.

D.G. Jansson , & S.M. Smith (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies 12(1), 311.

G.J. Johnson , G.C. Bruner, II , & A. Kumar (2006). Interactivity and its facets revisited: theory and empirical test. Journal of Advertising 35(4), 3552.

H. Johnson , & L. Carruthers (2006). Supporting creative and reflective processes. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 64(10), 9981030.

K. Kalogerakis , C. Lüthje , & C. Herstatt (2010). Developing innovations based on analogies: experience from design and engineering consultants. Journal of Product Innovation Management 27(3), 418436.

J. Knippers , & T. Speck (2012). Design and construction principles in nature and architecture. Bioinspiration & Biomimetics 7(1), 015002.

B. Kules , & B. Shneiderman (2008). Users can change their web search tactics: design guidelines for categorized overviews. Information Processing & Management 44(2), 463484.

M. Kuniavsky (2003). Observing the User Experience: A Practitioner's Guide to User Research. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

N.F. Lepora , P. Verschure , & T.J. Prescott (2013). The state of the art in biomimetics. Bioinspiration & Biomimetics 8(1), 013001.

J.S. Linsey , A.B. Markman , & K.L. Wood (2012). Design by analogy: a study of the wordtree method for problem re-representation. Journal of Mechanical Design 134(4), 041009.

J.S. Linsey , K.L. Wood , & A.B. Markman (2008). Modality and representation in analogy. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 22(2), 85100.

Y. Liu , & L. Shrum (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.

T.W. Mak , & L.H. Shu (2004). Abstraction of biological analogies for design. CIRP Annals—Manufacturing Technology 53(1), 117120.

T.W. Mak , & L.H. Shu (2008). Using descriptions of biological phenomena for idea generation. Research in Engineering Design 19(1), 2128.

B.A. Nijstad , W. Stroebe , & H.F. Lodewijkx (2002). Cognitive stimulation and interference in groups: exposure effects in an idea generation task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 38(6), 535544.

M. Nørgaard , & K. Hornbæk (2009). Exploring the value of usability feedback formats. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 25(1), 4974.

R. Oppenheimer (1956). Analogy in science. American Psychologist 11(3), 127135.

M. Pearce , A.K. Goel , J.L. Kolodner , C. Zimring , L. Sentosa , & R. Billington (1992). Case-based design support: a case study in architectural design. IEEE Expert 7(5), 1420.

M. Perttula , & P. Sipilä (2007). The idea exposure paradigm in design idea generation. Journal of Engineering Design 18(1), 93102.

P. Sarkar , & A. Chakrabarti (2008). The effect of representation of triggers on design outcomes. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 22(2), 101116.

B. Shneiderman (2000). Creating creativity: user interfaces for supporting innovation. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction 7(1), 114138.

M. Stacey , & C. Eckert (2003). Against ambiguity. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 12(2), 153183.

P.-A. Verhaegen , J. D'hondt , D. Vandevenne , S. Dewulf , & J.R. Duflou (2011). Identifying candidates for design-by-analogy. Computers in Industry 62(4), 446459.

J.F. Vincent , O.A. Bogatyreva , N.R. Bogatyrev , A. Bowyer , & A.-K. Pahl (2006). Biomimetics: its practice and theory. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 3(9), 471482.

J.O. Wilson , D. Rosen , B.A. Nelson , & J. Yen (2010). The effects of biological examples in idea generation. Design Studies 31(2), 169186.

Y. Yamamoto , & K. Nakakoji (2005). Interaction design of tools for fostering creativity in the early stages of information design. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 63(4), 513535.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

  • ISSN: 0890-0604
  • EISSN: 1469-1760
  • URL: /core/journals/ai-edam
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *



Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 4
Total number of PDF views: 31 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 158 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 28th June 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.