Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:37:45.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A study on the link between design brief structure and stimulus fidelity to optimize novelty and usefulness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2022

Georgios Koronis Open the ORCID record for Georgios Koronis [Opens in a new window] ,
Arlindo Silva ,
Jacob Kang Kai Siang  and
Christine Yogiaman
Georgios Koronis*
Affiliation:
Singapore University of Technology and Design, Singapore, Singapore
Arlindo Silva
Affiliation:
Singapore University of Technology and Design, Singapore, Singapore
Jacob Kang Kai Siang
Affiliation:
Singapore University of Technology and Design, Singapore, Singapore
Christine Yogiaman
Affiliation:
Singapore University of Technology and Design, Singapore, Singapore
*
Author for correspondence: Georgios Koronis, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This academic-based investigation is focused on identifying elements that contribute toward the generation of efficient design briefs and their correlation with design outcomes of a sketching exercise. Four conditions are compared: a baseline group, an abstract group, a contextual information group, and a group that was given various example solutions. Via more in-depth surveys, we sought to elicit correlations between the students’ design creativity and stimuli permutations of the different design conditions. Results show that the contextual information groups, which were presented with higher levels of stimulus fidelity, had higher novelty scores, while abstract groups performed well in usefulness. These findings contribute to the formulation of design briefs where the goal is to stimulate the creativity of design outcomes and examine their relationships with student's perceptions of design exercises.

Keywords

Design briefshigh-fidelityidea generationlow-fidelitynoveltyusefulness
Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 36 , 2022 , e5
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amabile, TM (1996) Creativity in Context, 1st Edn. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Baer, J (2008) Commentary: divergent thinking tests have problems, but this is not the solution. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 2, 89–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becattini, N, Cascini, G and Rotini, F (2015) Requirements checklists: benchmarking the comprehensiveness of the design specification. International Conference on Engineering Design.Google Scholar
Beghetto, RA and Sriraman, B (2016) Creative Contradictions in Education: cross Disciplinary Paradoxes and Perspectives. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Binyamin, G and Carmeli, A (2017) Fostering members’ creativity in teams: the role of structuring of human resource management processes. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 11, 18–33. doi:10.1037/aca0000088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boden, MA (1996) Creativity. In Boden, MA (ed.), Artificial Intelligence. San Diego: Academic Press, chap. 9, pp. 267–291.CrossRefGoogle 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 24, 104–117. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2017.02.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, M and Vazquez, D (1999) Defining a design manager's role in food retail. International Journal of New Product Development and Innovation Management 1, 167–178.Google Scholar
Camburn, BA, Auernhammer, JM, En Sng, KH, Mignone, PJ, Arlitt, RM, Blake Perez, K, Huang, Z, Basnet, S, Blessing, LT and Wood, KL (2017) Design innovation: a study of integrated practice. International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Ohio, USA, August 6–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlgren, L, Rauth, I and Elmquist, M (2016) Framing design thinking: the concept in idea and enactment. Creativity and Innovation Management 25, 38–57. doi:10.1111/caim.12153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cascini, G, Fiorineschi, L and Rotini, F (2019) Impact of design representations on creativity of design outcomes. Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science 23, 1–30. doi:10.3233/JID180012.Google Scholar
Cassotti, M, Camarda, A, Poirel, N, Houdé, O and Agogué, M (2016) Fixation effect in creative ideas generation: opposite impacts of example in children and adults. Thinking Skills and Creativity 19, 146–152. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2015.10.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charnley, J, Pease, A and Colton, S (2012) “On the Notion of Framing in Computational Creativity.” International Conference on Computational Creativity, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
Chen, W (2016) Exploring the learning problems and resource usage of undergraduate industrial design students in design studio courses. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 26, 461–487. doi:10.1007/s10798-015-9315-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, P, Mugge, R and Schoormans, JPL (2014) A new strategy to reduce design fixation: presenting partial photographs to designers. Design Studies 35, 374–391. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2014.02.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, R and Press, M (2011) The Design Agenda: A Guide to Successful Design Management. Johanneshov: TPB.Google Scholar
Cropley, D and Cropley, A (2005) Engineering creativity: a systems concept of functional creativity. In Kaufman, JC and Baer, J (eds), Creativity Across Domains: Faces of the Muse. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 169–185.Google Scholar
Dean, D, Hender, JM, Rodgers, TL and Santanen, E (2006) Identifying quality, novel, and creative ideas: constructs and scales for idea evaluation. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 7, 646–699. doi:10.17705/1jais.00106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, G and Sever, AL (2011) Inspiring design ideas with texts. Design Studies 32, 139–155. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2010.09.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, G and Smolkov, M (2006) Variances in the impact of visual stimuli on design problem solving performance. Design Studies 27, 549–569. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2006.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstone, R and Sakamoto, Y (2003) The transfer of abstract principles governing complex adaptive systems. Cognitive Psychology 46, 414–466.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gonçalves, M, Cardoso, C and Badke-Schaub, P (2013) Inspiration peak: Exploring the semantic distance between design problem and textual inspirational stimuli. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation 1, 215–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonçalves, M, Cardoso, C and Badke-Schaub, P (2016) Inspiration choices that matter: the selection of external stimuli during ideation. Design Science 2, e10. doi:10.1017/dsj.2016.10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goucher-Lambert, K, Moss, J and Cagan, J (2019) A neuroimaging investigation of design ideation with and without inspirational stimuli – understanding the meaning of near and far stimuli. Design Studies 60, 1–38. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2018.07.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guay, F, Vallerand, RJ and Blanchard, C (2000) On the assessment of situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: the situational motivation scale (SIMS). Motivation and Emotion 24, 175–213. doi:10.1023/A:1005614228250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, J, Su, Q and Zhang, Q (2017) Individual creativity during the ideation phase of product innovation: an interactional perspective. Creativity and Innovation Management 26, 31–48. doi:10.1111/caim.12205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallgren, KA (2012) Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: an overview and tutorial. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology 8, 23–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heckler, A (2010) Concrete vs. abstract problem formats: a disadvantage of prior knowledge. International Conference of the Learning Sciences 1, 365–371.Google Scholar
Howard, TJ, Culley, SJ and Dekoninck, E (2008) Describing the creative design process by the integration of engineering design and cognitive psychology literature. Design Studies 29, 160–180. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2008.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, T, Dekoninck, E and Culley, SJ (2010) The use of creative stimuli at early stages of industrial product innovation. Research in Engineering Design 21, 263–274. doi:10.1007/s00163-010-0091-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, TJY, Kuan, YK, Anwar Ali, HP, Huang, ZX, Ganeshkumar, R, Behera, J, Sanaei, R, Otto, K and Hölttä-Otto, K (2014) An overview of design cognition between experts and novices. International Conference on Advanced Design Research and Education. pp. 156--160.Google Scholar
Jansson, DG and Smith, SM (1991) Design fixation. Design Studies 12, 3–11. doi:10.1016/0142-694X(91)90003-F.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kampylis, PG and Valtanen, J (2010) Redefining creativity – analyzing definitions, collocations, and consequences. The Journal of Creative Behavior 44, 191–214. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2010.tb01333.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, KSJ, Chia, PZ, Koronis, G and Silva, A (2018) Exploring the use of a full factorial design of experiment to study design briefs for creative ideation. ASME-IDETC, Quebec, Canada, August 26–29.Google Scholar
Kaufman, SB and Kaufman, JC (2007) Ten years to expertise, many more to greatness: an investigation of modern writers. The Journal of Creative Behavior 41, 114–124. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2007.tb01284.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koronis, G, Chia, PZ, Kang Kai Siang, J, Silva, A, Yogiaman, C and Raghunath, N (2019) An empirical study on the impact of design brief information on the creativity of design outcomes with consideration of gender and gender diversity. Journal of Mechanical Design 141, 071102. doi:10.1115/1.4043207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koronis, G, Silva, A, Kang, JKS and Yogiaman, C (2020) How to best frame a design brief to maximize novelty and usefulness in idea generation. Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference 1, 1745–1754. doi:10.1017/dsd.2020.77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koronis, G, Casakin, H, Silva, A and Siang Kang, JK (2021) The influence of design brief information on creative outcomes by novice and advanced students. Proceedings of the Design Society 1, 3041–3050. doi:10.1017/pds.2021.565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvan, T and Jia, Y (2005) Students’ learning styles and their correlation with performance in architectural design studio. Design Studies 26, 19–34. doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.06.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawson, RB (2006) How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. Jordan Hill, Oxford: Butterworth Architecture.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lievens, F, De Corte, W and Westerveld, L (2012) Understanding the building blocks of selection procedures: effects of response fidelity on performance and validity. Journal of Management 41, 1604–1627. doi:10.1177/0149206312463941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linsey, JS, Wood, KL and Markman, AB (2008) Modality and representation in analogy. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 22, 85–100. doi:10.1017/S0890060408000061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linsey, JS, Tseng, I, Fu, K, Cagan, J, Wood, KL and Schunn, C (2010) A study of design fixation, its mitigation and perception in engineering design faculty. Journal of Mechanical Design 132, 1–12. doi:10.1115/1.4001110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linsey, JS, Markman, AB and Wood, KL (2012) Design by analogy: a study of the WordTree method for problem re-representation. Journal of Mechanical Design 134. doi:10.1115/1.4006145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, C-C (2015) The relationship between student design cognition types and creative design outcomes. Design Studies 36, 59–76. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2014.08.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marschark, M and Paivio, A (1977) Integrative processing of concrete and abstract sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 16, 217–231. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80048-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oakley, M (1990) Design Management : A Handbook of Issues and Methods. Oxford, UK; Cambridge, MA, USA: Blackwell Reference.Google Scholar
Oxford University (2020) Def. 1. In Lea, D and Bradbery, J (eds), Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pahl, G, Beitz, W, Feldhusen, J and Grote, K-H (2007) Conceptual design. In Wallace, K and Blessing, L (eds), Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. London: Springer London, pp. 159–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perks, H, Cooper, R and Jones, C (2005) Characterizing the role of design in new product development: an empirically derived taxonomy. Journal of Product Innovation Management 22, 111–127. doi:10.1111/j.0737-6782.2005.00109.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, PL (2004) Creating the Perfect Design Brief – How to Manage Design for Strategic Advantage. New York: Allworth Press.Google Scholar
Runco, MA and Jaeger, GJ (2012) The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal 24, 92–96. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2012.650092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryd, N (2004) The design brief as carrier of client information during the construction process. Design Studies 25, 231–249. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2003.10.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadowska, N and Laffy, D (2017) The design brief: inquiry into the starting point in a learning journey. The Design Journal 20, S1380–S1389. doi:10.1080/14606925.2017.1352664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawyer, RK (2017) Teaching creativity in art and design studio classes: a systematic literature review. Educational Research Review 22, 99–113. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2017.07.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, JJ, Smith, SM and Vargas-Hernandez, N (2003) Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Design Studies 24, 111–134. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(02)00034-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shai, O, Reich, Y, Hatchuel, A and Subrahmanian, E (2013) Creativity and scientific discovery with infused design and its analysis with C–K theory. Research in Engineering Design 24, 201–214. doi:10.1007/s00163-012-0137-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, R, Vasconcelos, LA and Cardoso, CC (2018) Design briefs in creativity studies. ICDC, Bath, UK, January 31–February 2.Google Scholar
Studer, J, McKilligan, S, Daly, SR and Seifert, C (2016) Cognitive heuristics in defining engineering design problems.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toh, CA and Miller, SR (2014) The impact of example modality and physical interactions on design creativity. Journal of Mechanical Design 136, 091004-1–091004-8. doi:10.1115/1.4027639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toh, CA and Miller, SR (2015) How engineering teams select design concepts: a view through the lens of creativity. Design Studies 38, 111–138. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2015.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasconcelos, LA and Crilly, N (2016) Inspiration and fixation: questions, methods, findings, and challenges. Design Studies 42, 1–32. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2015.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasconcelos, LA, Cardoso, CC, Sääksjärvi, M, Chen, C-C and Crilly, N (2017) Inspiration and fixation: the influences of example designs and system properties in idea generation. Journal of Mechanical Design 139, 031101-1–031101-13. doi:10.1115/1.4035540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viswanathan, V and Linsey, J (2012) Physical models and design thinking: a study of functionality, novelty and variety of ideas. Journal of Mechanical Design 134, 091004-091001. doi:10.1115/1.4007148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, V, Roy, R and Potter, S (1992) Winning by Design: Technology, Product Design and International Competitiveness. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Yang, MC (2005) A study of prototypes, design activity, and design outcome. Design Studies 26, 649–669. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2005.04.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zahner, D, Nickerson, JV, Tversky, B, Corter, JE 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 24, 231–244. doi:10.1017/S0890060410000077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zheng, X, Ritter, SC and Miller, SR (2018) How concept selection tools impact the development of creative ideas in engineering design education. Journal of Mechanical Design 140, 052002-1–052002-11. doi:10.1115/1.4039338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar