Advertisement

The Impact of Analogic, Digital and Hybrid Representations in the Ideation Phase of an Artifact Design: An Educational Perspective

  • Vasco SantosEmail author
  • Ana Ferreira
  • Eduardo Gonçalves
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 903)

Abstract

The present study focuses on the understanding of the relationship effect between analogical and digital representation forms upon the reflective act and consequently with the creative result in product design. The action field is characterized by the operative constituents of the design process. Within three decades, we watched the influence of the digital age on project practice [1] without new procedures about the way which was integrate in design project curricula, but the reality is that technologies are developing fast. Based on this paradigm, we need to restructure the project habits, using new semantics to describe and materialize our concepts. The starting question is: are we articulating and using better the representation tools in the ideation phase of design project? With this research, we seek to quantify the semantics reflection process, using the synergistic of analogical and digital modelling, to create best creative results.

Keywords

Design process Creativity Analogical methods Digital methods Creative performance Innovation 

References

  1. 1.
    Oxman, R.: Theory and design in the first digital age. Des. Stud. 27(3), 229–265 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Manzini, E.: A Matéria da Invenção. Centro Português de Design, Lisboa (1993)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhu, Y., Dorta, T., De Paoli, G.: A comparing study of the influence of CAAD tools to conceptual architecture design phase. In: Proceedings of EuropIA’2011: 11th International Conference on Design Sciences and Technology, pp. 29–43 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Walther, J., Robertson, B., Radcliffe, D.: Avoiding the Potential Negative Influence of CAD Tools on the Formation of Students’ Creativity. The University of Melbourne, Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dorta, T., Perez, E., Lesage, A.: The ideation gap: hybrid tools, design flow and practice. Des. Stud. 29(2), 121–141 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ibrahim, R., Rahimian, F.P.: Comparison of CAD and manual sketching tools for teaching architectural design. Autom. Constr. 19(8), 978–987 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goldschmidt, G.: The dialectics of sketching. Creat. Res. J. 4(2), 123–143 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Duarte, J.P., Celani, G., Pupo, R.: Inserting computational technologies in architectural curricula. In: Computational Design Methods and Technologies: Applications in CAD, CAM and CAE Education, pp. 390–411. IGI Global (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oman, S.K., Tumer, I.Y., Wood, K., Seepersad, C.: A comparison of creativity and innovation metrics and sample validation through in-class design projects. Res. Eng. Des. 24(1), 65–92 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Besemer, S.P., Treffinger, D.J.: Analysis of creative products: review and synthesis. J. Creat. Behav. 15(3), 158–178 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Amabile, T.M.: Social Psychology of Creativity: A Consensual Assessment Technique. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 43(5), 997 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Saunders, M.N., Seepersad, C.C., Hölttä-Otto, K.: The Characteristics of Innovative, Mechanical Products. J. Mech. Des. 133(2), 021009 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Linsey JS: Design-by-analogy and representation in innovative engineering concept generation. A dissertation for degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Engineering), Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Texas, Austin, TX (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chakrabarti A, Khadilkar P: A measure for assessing product novelty. In: DS 31: Proceedings of ICED 2003, the 14th International Conference on Engineering Design, pp. 159–160. Stockholm (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goldschmidt, G.: Linkography: Assessing Design Productivity. In: Cyberbetics and System’1990, Proceedings of the Tenth European Meeting on Cybernetics and Systems Research, pp. 291–298. World Scientific (1990)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chi, M.T.: Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: a practical guide. J. Learn. Sci. 6(3), 271–315 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yilmaz, S.: Design heuristics. A dissertation for degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Design Science). In: The University of Michigan (2010). https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/77845
  18. 18.
    Cross, N., Dorst, K.: Co-evolution of problem and solution spaces in creative design: observations from an empirical study. In: Gero, J.S., Maher, M.L., (eds.) Computational Models of Creative Design IV, University of Sydney, New South Wales (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tschimmel, K.: Sapiens e Demens no Pensamento Criativo do Design. A dissertation for degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Design Science), University of Aveiro, 2010, Departamento de Comunicação e Arte. http://ria.ua.pt/bitstream/10773//1/2010000838.Pdf
  20. 20.
    Hoenig, J.M., Heisey, D.M.: The abuse of power: the pervasive fallacy of power calculations for data analysis. Am. Stat. 55(1), 19–24 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kirk, R.E.: Practical significance: a concept whose time has come. Educ. Psychol. Measur. 56(5), 746–759 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vasco Santos
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Ana Ferreira
    • 1
    • 2
  • Eduardo Gonçalves
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Universidade Europeia, IADELisbonPortugal
  2. 2.UNIDCOM/IADE – Unidade de Investigação em Design e ComunicaçãoLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations