ICoRD'13 pp 211-222 | Cite as

Understanding Internal Analogies in Engineering Design: Observations from a Protocol Study

  • V. Srinivasan
  • Amaresh Chakrabarti
  • Udo Lindemann
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)


The objective of this research is to understand the use of internal analogies in the early phases of engineering design. Empirical studies are used to identify the following: type and role of analogies in designing; levels of abstraction of search and transfer of analogies; role of experience of designers on using analogies; and, effect of analogies on quantity and quality of solution space. The following are the important results: analogies from natural and artificial domains are used to develop requirements and solutions in the early phases of engineering design; experience of designers and nature of design problem influence the usage of analogies; analogies are explored and unexplored at different levels of abstraction of the SAPPhIRE model, and; the quantity and quality of solution space depend on the number of analogies used.


Analogy Novelty Variety SAPPhIRE model Experience 


  1. 1.
    Qian L, Gero J (1996) Function-behaviour-structure paths and their role in analogy-based design. AIEDAM 10(4):289–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goel A (1997) Design, Analogy and Creativity. IEEE Expert Intell Syst Appl 12(3):62–70MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sarkar P, Chakrabarti A (2008) The effect of representation of triggers on design outcomes. AIEDAM 22(2):101–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Young L (1987) The metaphor machine: a database method for creativity support. Decis Making Support Syst 3(4):309–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kletke M, Mackay J, Barr S, Jones B (2001) Creativity in the organization: the role of individual creative problem solving and computer support. Int J Human Comput Stud 55(3):217–237MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jansson D, Smith S (1991) Design fixation. Des Stud 12(1):3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lopez R, Linsey J (2011) Characterizing the effect of domain distance in design-by-analogy. ASME IDETC/CIE design theory and methodology conferenceGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sarkar P, Chakrabarti A (2007) Understanding search in design. International conference on engineering design (ICED07)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Srinivasan V, Chakrabarti A (2010) Investigating novelty-outcome relationships in engineering design. AIEDAM 24(2):161–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ahmed-Kristensen S, Christensen B (2008) Use of analogies by novice and experienced design engineers. ASME IDETC/CIE, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tseng I, Moss J, Cagan J, Kotovsky K (2008) The role of timing and analogical similarity in the stimulation of idea generation in design. Des Stud 29(3):203–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wilson J, Rosen D, Nelson B, Yen J (2010) The effects of biological examples in idea generation. Des Stud 31(2):169–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chakrabarti A, Sarkar P, Leelavathamma B, Nataraju BS (2005) A functional representation for aiding biomimetic and artificial inspiration of new ideas. AIEDAM 19(2):113–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Srinivasan V, Chakrabarti A (2010) An integrated model of designing. JCISE 10(3)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Christensen B, Schunn C (2007) The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and pre-inventive structure: The case of engineering design. Memory Cognit 35(1):29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gramann J (2007) Problemmodelle und Bionik als Methode. Ph.d Thesis, Technical University MunichGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Helms M, Vattam S, Goel A (2009) Biologically inspired design: process and products. Des Stud 30(5):606–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sartori J, Pal U, Chakrabarti A (2010) A methodology for supporting “transfer” in biomimetic design. AIEDAM 24(4):483–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. Srinivasan
    • 1
  • Amaresh Chakrabarti
    • 2
  • Udo Lindemann
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Product DevelopmentTechnische Universitat of MunichMunichGermany
  2. 2.Centre for Product Design and ManufacturingIndian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations