Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of the method used in the generation of valid engineering concepts

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Innovative products are almost a necessity nowadays; however, educational institutions do not have reliable data about which methods should be instructed, nor how. For this reason, the objective of this research is to quantify the relevance of the selected design method when generating concepts in the early stages of design. To compare the performance of structured and intuitive methods to generate ideas, a two-stage experiment was applied in two contexts in which were evaluated novelty, variety, quality and quantity. First, participants were asked to solve a problem using a recently taught method. The aim was to obtain insights about the influence of each method. Second, all participants were asked to solve a new problem after being taught four chosen methods, the goal being to obtain insights about the team’s circumstances. In general, the best results were obtained with structured methods, which simultaneously were also the least preferred by students, probably due to the ease of implementation associated with the alternative type of methods; namely, intuitive. Additionally, the study investigated other significant effects, such as the length of time of the experiments and the timing of each stage, as well as the effects of the particular context in which the experiment occurred. Considering the two types of methods, for example, an organization focused on structured methods could benefit from using those methods periodically, increasing its “tool dexterity” ability, while an organization focused on intuitive methods could emphasize the background of the users, namely the “user capacities”. Since those trends—and others—were similar for both problems in both contexts, it is natural to ask which changes could modify these tendencies. Changing the problem’s complexity and reaching to a more diverse universe of participants could be a good step towards having more confidence in the deduction of general design principles to generate ideas for solving real world challenges.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gero, J.S., Jiang, H., Williams, C.B.: Design cognition differences when using unstructured, partially structured, and structured concept generation creativity techniques. Int. J. Des. Creat. Innov. 1(4), 196–214 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2013.801760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Martin, R., Thomas, F., Ramiro, P., Johann, H.: Harnessing the secret structure of innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, March 20. http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/harnessing-the-secret-structure-ofinnovation/?use_credit=7d66788d9bbbdc992995a492075269a5 (2017). Accessed 20 Apr 2018

  3. Osborn, A.: Applied imagination; principles and procedures of creative problem-solving, 3rd Ed. Scribner. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000H5HJBQ (1963). Accessed 5 Sept 2017

  4. Sluis-Thiescheffer, W., Bekker, T., Eggen, B.: Comparing early design methods for children. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children—IDC’07 (p. 17). https://doi.org/10.1145/1297277.1297281 (2007)

  5. Scott, G., Leritz, L.E., Mumford, M.D.: The effectiveness of creativity training: a quantitative review. Creat. Res. J. 16(4), 361–388 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1604_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Linsey, J.S., Clauss, E.F., Kurtoglu, T., Murphy, J.T., Wood, K.L., Markman, A.B.: An experimental study of group idea generation techniques: understanding the roles of idea representation and viewing methods. J Mech Des 133(3), 31008 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4003498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Linsey, J.S., Tseng, I., Fu, K., Cagan, J., Wood, K.L., Schunn, C.: A study of design fixation, its mitigation and perception in engineering design faculty. J Mech Des 132(4), 41003 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4001110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Laakso, M., Liikkanen, L.A.: Dubious role of formal creativity techniques in professional design. In: ICDC 2012—2nd International Conference on Design Creativity, Proceedings (December), pp. 55–64. Retrieved from http://www.designsociety.org/publication/32462/dubious_role_of_formal_creativity_techniques_in_professional_design (2012). Accessed 5 Sept 2017

  9. Toh, C.A., Miller, S.R.: The impact of example modality and physical interactions on design creativity. J Mech Des 136(9), 91004 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4027639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Toh, C.A., Miller, S.R.: How engineering teams select design concepts: a view through the lens of creativity. Des Stud 38, 111–138 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2015.03.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Toh, C.A., Miller, S.R., Okudan Kremer, G.E.: The impact of team-based product dissection on design novelty. J Mech Des 136(4), 41004 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4026151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Toh, C., Miller, S., Kremer, G.E.: Mitigating design fixation effects in engineering design through product dissection activities, p. 12. Design Computing and Cognition, DCC (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bougrine, S., Buisine, S., Vandendriessche, C., Glaveanu, V., Lubart, T.: Engineering students’ use of creativity and development tools in conceptual product design: what, when and how? Think. Skills Creat. 24, 104–117 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.02.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lindemann, U.: Models of design. In: Chakrabarti, A., Blessing, L. (eds.) An anthology of theories and models of design, pp. 121–132. Springer, London (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6338-1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Motyl, B., Filippi, S.: Comparison of creativity enhancement and idea generation methods in engineering design training. In: Methods in engineering design training, pp. 242–250. Springer. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-07233-3_23 (2014)

  16. Shah, J.J., Vargas-Hernandez, N., Smith, S.M.: Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Des Stud 24(2), 111–134 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chulvi, V., González-Cruz, M.C., Mulet, E., Aguilar-Zambranortin, J.: Influence of the type of idea-generation method on the creativity of solutions. Res Eng Design 24(1), 33–41 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-012-0134-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chulvi, V., Mulet, E., Chakrabarti, A., López-Mesa, B., González-Cruz, C.: Comparison of the degree of creativity in the design outcomes using different design methods. J Eng Des 23(4), 241–269 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2011.624501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chulvi, V., Sonseca, A., Mulet, E., Chakrabarti, A.: Assessment of the relationships among design methods, design activities, and creativity. J Mech Des 134(11), 111004 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4007362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gero, J.S., Jiang, H., Williams, C.B.: Does using different concept generation techniques change the design cognition of design students? In: Volume 7: 9th International Conference on Design Education; 24th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology (p. 625) (2012a). https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2012-71165

  21. Gero, J.S., Jiang, H., Williams, C.B.: Does using different concept generation techniques change the design cognition of design students? In: Volume 7: 9th International Conference on Design Education; 24th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology (p. 625) (2012b). https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2012-71165

  22. Crilly, N.: Fixation and creativity in concept development: the attitudes and practices of expert designers. Des Stud 38, 54–91 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2015.01.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Daly, S., Adams, R., Bodner, G.M.: What does it mean to design? A qualitative investigation of design professionals’ experiences. J Eng Educ (2012). https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00048.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hanington, B., Martin, B.: Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions Choice Reviews Online, vol. 49. Rockport Publishers, Beverly (2012). https://doi.org/10.5860/CHOICE.49-5403

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. Kind, J.: Fostering creativity. TQM Mag. 6, 9–10 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1108/09544789410067943

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Belski, I., Baglin, J., Harlim, J.: Teaching TRIZ at university: a longitudinal study. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 29(2), 346–354 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kudrowitz, B.M., Wallace, D.: Assessing the quality of ideas from prolific, early-stage product ideation. J Eng Des 24(2), 120–139 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2012.676633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bul, K., Krishnan, N., Griggs, D., et al.: Using the Japanese KJ Ho method as a qualitative creative problem solving technique to address clinicians’ and young kidney transplant patients’ needs. Transplantation 102(7 Supplement 1), S594 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Chechurin, L.: TRIZ in science. Reviewing indexed publications. Proc. CIRP 39, 156–165 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kazakçı, A., Gillier, T., Piat, G., Hatchuel, A.: Brainstorming versus creative design reasoning (pp. 1–20) (2014). https://hal-mines-paristech.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00969300/

  31. Aslani, A., Naaranoja, M., Kekale, T.: Application of creativity techniques in the creation of organizational strategies. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag. 4, 14 (2012). https://doi.org/10.5772/51359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sakae, Y., Kato, T., Sato, K., Matsuoka, Y.: Classification of design methods from the viewpoint of design science. In: Proceedings of International Design Conference, Design, vol. DS 84, pp. 493–502 (2016). https://www.designsociety.org/publication/38859/classification_of_design_methods_from_the_viewpoint_of_design_science

  33. Altshuller, G.: Creativity as an exact science, 1st ed. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers (1984). http://www.amazon.com/dp/0677212305. Accessed 8 Mar 2017

  34. Duran-Novoa, R., Leon-Rovira, N., Aguayo-Tellez, H., Said, D.: Inventive problem solving based on dialectical negation, using evolutionary algorithms and TRIZ heuristics. Comput Ind 62(4), 437–445 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2010.12.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mann, D.: Axiomatic design and TRIZ: compatibilities and contradictions. In: Proceedings of ICAD2002, vol. 44(1225), pp. 1–7 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.197

  36. Mueller, S.: The TRIZ resource analysis tool for solving management tasks: previous classifications and their modification. Creat. Innov. Manag. 14(1), 43 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Sorli, M., Stokic, D., Gorostiza, A., Campos, A.: Fostering innovation in practice through TRIZ-based CAI tools. Int J Comput Appl Technol 30(1/2), 3 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Zhang, R., Liang, Y.: A conceptual design model using axiomatic design and TRIZ. Int. J. Prod. Dev. 4(1/2), 68 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Cascini, G., Rissone, P.: Plastics design: integrating TRIZ creativity and semantic portals. J Eng Des 15(4), 405 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Cavallucci, D., Oget, D.: On the efficiency of teaching TRIZ: experiences in a French engineering School. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 29(2), 304–317 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Ishihama, M.: Training students on the TRIZ method using a patent database. Int J Technol Manage 25(6–7), 568 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Eberle, B.: Scamper on: games for imagination development. Prufrock Press Inc, Austin (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Buser, J.K., Buser, T.J., Gladding, S.T., Wilkerson, J.: The creative counselor: using the SCAMPER model in counselor training. J. Creat. Mental Health 6(4), 256–273 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1080/15401383.2011.631468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Serrat, O.: The SCAMPER technique. In: Serrat, O. (ed.) Knowledge Solutions, pp. 311–314. Springer, Singapore (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0983-9_33

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. Kawakita, Jiro: The Original KJ Method. Kawakita Research Institute, Tokyo (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Kunifuji, S.: A Japanese problem-solving approach: the KJ Ho method. In: Skulimowski, A., Kacprzyk, J. (eds.) Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 364, pp. 165–170. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19090-7_13

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  47. Chi, M.T.H.: Active-constructive-interactive: a conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Top. Cogn. Sci. 1(1), 73–105 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Scupin, R.: The KJ method: a technique for analyzing data derived from Japanese ethnology. Hum. Organ. 56(2), 233–237 (1997). https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.56.2.x335923511444655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Levine, J.M., Alexander, K.M., Wright, A.G.C., Higgins, E.T.: Group brainstorming: when regulatory nonfit enhances performance. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 19(2), 257–271 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430215577226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Bouchard, T.J.: A comparison of two group brainstorming procedures. J Appl Psychol 56(5), 418–421 (1972)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Hender, Jillian M., Dean, Douglas L., Rodgers, Thomas L., Nunamaker, J.: An examination of the impact of stimuli type and GSS structure on creativity: brainstorming versus non-brainstorming techniques in a GSS environment. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 18(4), 59–85 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2002.11045705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Kohn, N.W., Smith, S.M.: Collaborative fixation: effects of others’ ideas on brainstorming. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 25(3), 359–371 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1699/full

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Rawlinson, J.G.: Creative Thinking and Brainstorming. Routledge, Abingdon (2017). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315259000

    Book  Google Scholar 

  54. Shi, Y.: An Optimization Algorithm Based on Brainstorming Process. Int J Swarm Intell Res 2(4), 35–62 (2011). https://doi.org/10.4018/jsir.2011100103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Nelson, B.A., Wilson, J.O., Rosen, D., Yen, J.: Refined metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Des Stud 30(6), 737–743 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Lubart, T.: How can computers be partners in the creative process: classification and commentary on the special issue. Int J Hum Comput Stud 63(4–5), 365–369 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.04.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Hwang, D., Park, W.: Development of portability design. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering Designing (December) (2015), pp. 27–30

  58. Jonassen, D.H.: Toward a design theory of problem solving. Education Tech Research Dev 48(4), 63–85 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02300500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Jonassen, D.: Learning to Solve Problems a Handbook for Designing Problem-Solving Learning Environments. Routledge, Abingdon (2011)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial and the technical support of Writing Lab, TecLabs, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Mexico in the production of this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad de Monterrey, Av. Ignacio Morones Prieto 4500 Pte, San Pedro Garza García, NL, Mexico

    Roberto Duran-Novoa

  2. Escuela de Ingeniería y Ciencias, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Ave. Eugenio Garza Sada 2501, 64849, Monterrey, NL, Mexico

    Jorge Lozoya-Santos, Ricardo Ramírez-Mendoza & Adriana Vargas-Martínez

  3. Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Av Libertador Bernardo O’Higgins 3363, Santiago, Región Metropolitana, Chile

    Felipe Torres-Benoni

Authors
  1. Roberto Duran-Novoa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jorge Lozoya-Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ricardo Ramírez-Mendoza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Felipe Torres-Benoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Adriana Vargas-Martínez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roberto Duran-Novoa.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Duran-Novoa, R., Lozoya-Santos, J., Ramírez-Mendoza, R. et al. Influence of the method used in the generation of valid engineering concepts. Int J Interact Des Manuf 13, 1073–1088 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-019-00577-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-019-00577-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation