Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Bender, Beate
and
Gericke, Kilian
2021.
Pahl/Beitz Konstruktionslehre.
p.
1.
Article contents
Assessing the Impact of Abstract Representations and Reframing of Design Brief Information on Creative Ideation
Part of:
Design Creativity
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 July 2019
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
The overarching goal of this work is to support creative ideation in engineering design with the aim of overcoming design fixation. We study the impact of abstract representations and ways to frame the problem in design briefs on the creativity of concept sketches. Framing/Reframing involves shifting perspectives on the design purpose and to reveal insights and opportunities. Two Framing/Reframing techniques are tested: the Ishikawa/Fishbone Diagram to identify root causes and a blend of Parnes’ Restatement/SCAMPER method to encourage divergence in problem perception. Abstract representations of requirements were used as stimuli to foster transfer and associative thinking. Using a full-factorial experimental design with brief variations, C-Sketch ideas developed by first-year engineering/architecture students were evaluated for their creativity. Our results showed a positive interaction effect for novelty and usefulness when the Fishbone Reframing method was used with abstract representation, but there was no difference in creativity scores when comparing the two Framing/Reframing methods between each other.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 279 - 288
- Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.- Copyright
- © The Author(s) 2019
References
Antony, J. (2014), Design of Experiments for Engineers and Scientists, Elsevier Ltd, London.Google Scholar
Bourgeois-Bougrine, S., Buisine, S., Vandendriessche, C., Glaveanu, V. and Lubart, T. (2017), “Engineering students’ use of creativity and development tools in conceptual product design: What, when and how?” Thinking Skills and Creativity, Vol. 24, pp. 104–117.Google Scholar
Camburn, B.A., Auernhammer, J.M., Sng, K.H.E., Mignone, P.J., Arlitt, R.M., Perez, K.B., Huang, Z., Basnet, S., Blessing, L.T. and Wood, K.L. (2017), Design Innovation: A Study of Integrated Practice. No. 58219, p. V007T006A031.Google Scholar
Carlgren, L., Rauth, I. and Elmquist, M. (2016), “Framing Design Thinking: The Concept in Idea and Enactment”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 38–57.Google Scholar
Dean, D.L.H., Jillian, M.; Rodgers, T.L.; and Santanen, E.L. (2006), “Bucknell University. Identifying Quality, Novel, and Creative Ideas: Constructs and Scales for Idea Evaluation”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 7 No. 10, pp. 646–699.Google Scholar
Dinar, M., Shah, J., Hunt, G., Campana, E. and Langley, P. (2011), Towards a Formal Representation Model of Problem Formulation in Design. No. 54860, pp. 263–272.Google Scholar
Finke, R.A. (1990), Creative imagery: Discoveries and inventions in visualization, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Hillsdale, NJ, US.Google Scholar
Fogler, H.S. and LeBlanc, S.E. (2008), Strategies for creative problem solving, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google Scholar
Gero, J.S. and Mc Neill, T. (1998), “An approach to the analysis of design protocols”, Design Studies, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 21–61.Google Scholar
Getzels, J.W. (1975), “Problem-Finding and the Inventiveness of Solutions”, The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 12–18.Google Scholar
Getzels, J.W. and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1977), “The Creative Vision: A Longitudinal Study of Problem Finding in Art”, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 36 No. 1.Google Scholar
Goldstone, R.L. and Sakamoto, Y. (2003), “The transfer of abstract principles governing complex adaptive systems”, Cogn Psychol, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 414–466.Google Scholar
Heckler, A.F. (2010), Concrete vs. abstract problem formats: a disadvantage of prior knowledge. p. 365–371.Google Scholar
Helms, M. and Goel, A.K. (2014), The Four-Box Method of Problem Specification and Analogy Evaluation in Biologically Inspired Design. No. 46407, p. V007T007A005.Google Scholar
Hicks, M.J. (2004), Problem Solving and Decision Making: Hard, Soft and Creative Approaches, 2nd Edition, Thomson Learning, London.Google Scholar
Higgins, J.S., Maitland, G.C., Perkins, J.D., Richardson, S.M. and Piper, D.W. (1989), “Identifying and solving problems in engineering design”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 169–181.Google Scholar
Holyoak, K.J. and Thagard, P. (1989), “Analogical Mapping by Constraint Satisfaction”, Cognitive Science, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 295–355.Google Scholar
Josephson, J.R.J. and Susan, G. (1994), Abductive inference : computation, philosophy, technology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J.C., Baer, J., Cole, J.C. and Sexton∗, J.D. (2008), “A Comparison of Expert and Nonexpert Raters Using the Consensual Assessment Technique”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 171–178.Google Scholar
Kepner, C.H. and Tregoe, B.B. (2013), The new rational manager : an updated edition for a new world,Google Scholar
Kohfeldt, D. and Day Langhout, R. (2012), “The Five Whys Method: A Tool for Developing Problem Definitions in Collaboration with Children”. http://doi.org/10.1002/casp.1114Google Scholar
Kruger, C. and Cross, N. (2006), “Solution driven versus problem driven design: strategies and outcomes”, Design Studies, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 527–548.Google Scholar
Linsey, J.S. (2007), Design-by-analogy and representation in innovative engineering concept generation, in Mechanical Engineering. University of Texas at Austin. p. 393.Google Scholar
Linsey, J.S., Markman, A.B. and Wood, K.L. (2012), “Design by Analogy: A Study of the WordTree Method for Problem Re-Representation”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 134 No. 4, 041009-041009-041012.Google Scholar
Linsey, J.S., Tseng, I., Fu, K., Cagan, J., Wood, K.L. and Schunn, C. (2010), “A Study of Design Fixation, Its Mitigation and Perception in Engineering Design Faculty”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 132 No. 4, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Linsey, J.S., Wood, K.L. and Markman, A.B. (2008), “Modality and representation in analogy”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 85–100.Google Scholar
Marschark, M. and Paivio, A. (1977), “Integrative processing of concrete and abstract sentences”, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 217–231.Google Scholar
Moreno, D.P., Blessing, L.T., Yang, M.C., Hernández, A.A. and Wood, K.L. (2016), “Overcoming design fixation: Design by analogy studies and nonintuitive findings”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 185–199.Google Scholar
Sarkar, P. and Chakrabarti, A. (2011), “Assessing design creativity”, Design Studies, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 348–383.Google Scholar
Schön, D.A. (1988), “Designing: Rules, types and worlds”, Design Studies, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 181–190.Google Scholar
Schön, D.A. (1983), The reflective practitioner : how professionals think in action, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
Serrat, O. (2017), “The SCAMPER Technique”. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0983-9_33Google Scholar
Shah, J.J., Smith, S.M. and Vargas-Hernandez, N. (2003), “Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness”, Design Studies, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 111–134.Google Scholar
Shah, J.J., Vargas-Hernandez, N.O.E., Summers, J.D. and Kulkarni, S. (2011), “Collaborative Sketching (C-Sketch) — An Idea Generation Technique for Engineering Design”, The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 168–198.Google Scholar
Storme, M., Myszkowski, N., Çelik, P. and Lubart, T. (2014), “Learning to judge creativity: The underlying mechanisms in creativity training for non-expert judges”, Learning and Individual Differences, Vol. 32,pp. 19–25.Google Scholar
Studer, J., McKilligan, S., R Daly, S. and Seifert, C. (2016), “Cognitive Heuristics in Defining Engineering Design Problems”. http://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2016-59942Google Scholar
Valkenburg, A.C. (2000), The reflective practice in product design teams, in None (EN).Google Scholar
Watson, P. Rules of thumb on magnitudes of effect sizes. Available: http://imaging.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/statswiki/FAQ/effectSize [Accessed].Google Scholar
Zahner, D., Nickerson, J.V., Tversky, B., Corter, J.E. and 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, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 231–244.Google Scholar
You have
Access
Open access
- 1
- Cited by