Toward a Computational Approach of Creativity Assessment in Product Design

  • Xiaofang Yuan
  • Ji-hyun Lee
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 369)


One of the most important criteria for the performance quality in design is the creativity of the design. Many researchers have developed methods to assess the creativity of product design, but the subjective and qualitative judgments of traditional creativity measurement are proved to lack sufficient validity and reliability. Furthermore, most of the assessment of creativity in design is based on the design outcome instead of the design process. In this paper, we proposed a computational approach of creativity assessment in product design via the combination of the design process and design creativity. We established a method to quantify the design process. And design creativity is rated using the Consensual Assessment Technique. Then the correlation of all the creativity-related factors in the design process and the design creativity will be calculated. Last, creativity assessment formula is proposed based on the factors and the correlation coefficient.


creativity assessment product design computational approach design process 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Akin, Ö.: Psychology of architectural design, Pion (1986)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amabile, T.M.: The social psychology of creativity. Springer (1983)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amabile, T.M.: Social psychology of creativity: a consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43(5), 997–1013 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amabile, T.M.: Creativity in Context: Update to The Social Psychology of Crativity. Basic Books (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baer, J.: Creativity and divergent thinking: a task-specific approach. L. Erlbaum (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baer, J.: Divergent thinking is not a general trait: A multidomain training experiment. Creativity Research Journal 7(1), 35–46 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baer, J.: Is creativity domain specific? In: Kaufman, J.C., Sternberg, R.J. (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baer, J., Kaufman, J.C., Gentile, C.A.: Extension of the Consensual Assessment Technique to Nonparallel Creative Products. Creativity Research Journal 16(1), 113–117 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baer, J., McKool, S.: Assessing Creativity Using the Consensual Assessment Technique. In: Handbook of Research on Assessment Technologies, Methods, and Applications in Higher Education. IGI Global (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Casakin, H., Kreitler, S.: Correspondences and divergences between teachers and students in the evaluation of design creativity in the design studio. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 35(4), 666–678 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Christiaans, H.: Creativity in Design. Ph.D, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands (1992)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Christiaans, H.: Creativity as a Design Criterion. Creativity Research Journal 14(1), 41–54 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Christiaans, H., Venselaar, K.: Creativity in design engineering and the role of knowledge: Modelling the expert. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 15, 217–236 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cross, N.: Descriptive models of creative design: application to an example. Design Studies 18(4), 427–440 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dorst, K., Cross, N.: Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies 22(5), 425–437 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ennis, C.W., Gyeszly, S.W.: Protocol analysis of the engineering systems design process. Research in Engineering Design 3, 15–22 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ericsson, K.A., Simon, H.A.: Protocol Analysis, Verbal Reports as Data, Revised edn. MIT Press, Cambridge (1993)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fricke, G.: Successful individual approaches in engineering design. Research in Engineering Design 8(3), 151–165 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gero, J.S.: Creativity, emergence and evolution in design. Knowledge-Based Systems 9(7), 435–448 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hatchuel, A., Weil, B.: A new approach of innovative design: an introduction to C-K theory. Paper Presented at the International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED 2003, Stockholm (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hatchuel, A., Weil, B.: C-K design theory: an advanced formulation. Research in Engineering Design 19(4), 181–192 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hennessey, B.A.: The consensual assessment technique: An examination of the relationship between ratings of product and process creativity. Creativity Research Journal 7(2), 193–208 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Howard, T.J., Culley, S.J., Dekoninck, E.: Describing the creative design process by the integration of engineering design and cognitive psychology literature. Design Studies 29(2), 160–180 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mullins, C.A., Atman, C.J., Shuman, L.: Freshmen engineers strategies and performance in design problems. Paper presented at the IEEE Transactions on EducationGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Neill, T., Gero, J., Warren, J.: Understanding conceptual electronic design using protocol analysis. Research in Engineering Design 10(3), 129–140 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Roozenburg, N., Eekels, J.: Product design: fundamentals and methods. Wiley (1995)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Runco, M.A.: Critical creative processes. Hampton Press (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Runco, M.A., Jaeger, G.J.: The Standard Definition of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal 24(1), 92–96 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sarkar, P., Chakrabarti, A.: Studying engineering design creativity - developing a common definition and associated measures. In: Gero, J.S. (ed.) Studying Design Creativity, Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sarkar, P., Chakrabarti, A.: Assessing design creativity. Design Studies 32(4), 348–383 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schön, D.A.: The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books (1983)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Simonton, D.K.: Taking the U.S. Patent Office Criteria Seriously: A Quantitative Three-Criterion Creativity Definition and Its Implications. Creativity Research Journal 24(2-3), 97–106 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Takeda, H., Veerkamp, P., Yoshikawa, H.: Modeling design process. Ai Magazine 11(4), 37–48 (1990)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Torrance, E.P.: Creativity. What Research Says to the Teacher. ERIC Clearinghouse, Washington, D.C. (1969)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ulrich, K.T., Eppinger, S.D.: Product design and development. McGraw-Hill/Irwin (2004)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    van Someren, M.W., Barnard, Y.F., Sandberg, J.: The think aloud method: a practical guide to modelling cognitive processes. Academic Press (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiaofang Yuan
    • 1
  • Ji-hyun Lee
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of Culture TechnologyKorea Advanced Institute of Science and TechnologyKorea

Personalised recommendations