Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T13:23:09.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An empirical understanding of use of internal analogies in conceptual design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2015

V. Srinivasan ,
Amaresh Chakrabarti  and
Udo Lindemann
V. Srinivasan*
Affiliation:
Institute of Product Development, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany
Amaresh Chakrabarti
Affiliation:
Centre for Product Design and Manufacturing, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India
Udo Lindemann
Affiliation:
Institute of Product Development, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany
*
Reprint requests to: V. Srinivasan, Institute of Product Development, Technische Universität München, Boltzmannstrasse 15, 85748 Garching, Germany. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Internal analogies are created if the knowledge of source domain is obtained only from the cognition of designers. In this paper, an understanding of the use of internal analogies in conceptual design is developed by studying: the types of internal analogies; the roles of internal analogies; the influence of design problems on the creation of internal analogies; the role of experience of designers on the use of internal analogies; the levels of abstraction at which internal analogies are searched in target domain, identified in source domain, and realized in the target domain; and the effect of internal analogies from the natural and artificial domains on the solution space created using these analogies. To facilitate this understanding, empirical studies of design sessions from earlier research, each involving a designer solving a design problem by identifying requirements and developing conceptual solutions, without using any support, are used. The following are the important findings: designers use analogies from the natural and artificial domains; analogies are used for generating requirements and solutions; the nature of the design problem influences the use of analogies; the role of experience of designers on the use of analogies is not clearly ascertained; analogical transfer is observed only at few levels of abstraction while many levels remain unexplored; and analogies from the natural domain seem to have more positive influence than the artificial domain on the number of ideas and variety of idea space.

Keywords

ExperienceIdeasInternal AnalogyNatural and Artificial DomainsProblemVariety
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 29 , Issue 2: Analogical Thinking , May 2015 , pp. 147 - 160
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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

REFERENCES

Ahmed, S., & Christensen, B. (2008). Use of analogies by novice and experienced design engineers. Proc. ASME 2008 Int. Design Engineering Technology Conf. and Computers and Information in Engineering Conf., IDETC/CIE 2008. New York: ASME.Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, A., Sarkar, P., Leelavathamma, B., & Nataraju, B.S. (2005). A functional representation for aiding biomimetic and artificial inspiration of new ideas. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 19(2), 113–132.Google Scholar
Christensen, B.T., & Schunn, C.D. (2007). The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and preinventive structure: the case of engineering design. Memory & Cognition 35(1), 29–38.Google Scholar
French, M. (1988). Conceptual Design for Engineers, 3rd ed.London: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In Similarity and Analogical Reasoning (Vosniadou, S., & Ortony, A., Eds.), pp. 199–241. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goel, A.K. (1997). Design, analogy and creativity. IEEE Expert 12(3), 62–70.Google Scholar
Helms, M., & Goel, A. (2012). Analogical problem evolution in biologically inspired design. Proc. Design Computing and Cognition 2012, DCC12, pp. 3–17. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Helms, M., & Goel, A. (2013). Grounded knowledge representations for biologically inspired design. Proc. Int. Conf. Engineering Design 2013, ICED13, pp. 351–360. Seoul: Design Society.Google Scholar
Howard, T.J., Dekoninck, E.A., & Culley, S.J. (2010). The use of creative stimuli at early stages of industrial product innovation. Research in Engineering Design 21(4), 263–274.Google Scholar
Jansson, D., & Smith, S. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies 12(1), 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kletke, M.G., Mackay, J.M., Barr, S.H., & Jones, B. (2001). Creativity in the organization: the role of individual creative problem solving and computer support. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 55(3), 217–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lopez, R., Linsey, J., & Smith, S. (2011). Characterizing the effect of domain distance in design-by-analogy. Proc. Int. Design Engineering Technology Conf. and Computers and Information in Engineering Conf. 2011, IDETC/CIE 2011, pp. 141–151. Washington, DC: ASME.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, B.A., Yen, J., Wilson, J.O., & Rosen, D. (2009). Refined metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Design Studies 30(6), 737–743.Google Scholar
Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., & Grote, K.H. (2007). Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, 3rd ed.London: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Qian, L., & Gero, J. (1996). Function–behavior–structure paths and their role in analogy-based design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 10(4), 289–312.Google Scholar
Sarkar, P., & Chakrabarti, A. (2007). Understanding search in design. Proc. Int. Conf. Engineering Design 2007, ICED07. Paris: Design Society.Google Scholar
Sarkar, P., & Chakrabarti, A. (2008). The effect of representation of triggers on design outcomes. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 22(2), 101–116.Google Scholar
Sarkar, P., & Chakrabarti, A. (2011). Assessing design creativity. Design Studies 32(4), 348–383.Google Scholar
Sartori, J., Pal, U., & Chakrabarti, A. (2010). A methodology for supporting transfer in biomimetic design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 24(4), 483–505.Google Scholar
Shah, J., Vargas-Hernandez, N., & Smith, S.M. (2003). Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Design Studies 24(2), 111–134.Google Scholar
Srinivasan, V., & Chakrabarti, A. (2009). SAPPhIRE—an approach to analysis and synthesis. Proc. Int. Conf. Engineering Design, ICED09, pp. 417–428. Los Angeles: Design Society.Google Scholar
Srinivasan, V., & Chakrabarti, A. (2010 a). An integrated model of designing. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering 10(3), 115–124.Google Scholar
Srinivasan, V., & Chakrabarti, A. (2010 b). Investigating novelty–outcome relationships in engineering design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 24(2), 161–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tseng, I., Moss, J., Cagan, J., & Kotovsky, K. (2008). Overcoming blocks in conceptual design: the effects of open goals and analogical similarity on idea generation. Proc. Int. Design Engineering Technology Conf. Computers and Information in Engineering Conf., IDETC/CIE 2008, pp. 3–9. New York: ASME.Google Scholar
VanGundy, A.B. (1981). Techniques of Structured Problem Solving. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
Vattam, S., & Goel, A. (2013). Seeking bioinspiration online: a descriptive account. Proc. Int. Conf. Engineering Design 2013, ICED13, pp. 347–356. Seoul: Design Society.Google Scholar
Vattam, S., Helms, M., & Goel, A. (2010). A content account of creative analogies in biologically inspired design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 24(4), 467–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vattam, S., Wiltgen, B., Helms, M., Goel, A., & Yen, J. (2011). DANE: fostering creativity in and through biologically inspired design. In Design Creativity 2010 (Taura, T., & Nagai, Y., Eds.), pp. 115–122. London: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Verhaegen, P.-A., Vandevenne, D., Peeters, J., & Duflou, J.R. (2013). Refinements to the variety metric for idea evaluation. Design Studies 34(2), 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J.O., Rosen, D., Nelson, B., & Yen, J. (2010). The effects of biological examples in idea generation. Design Studies 31(2), 169–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, L. (1987). The metaphor machine: a database method for creativity support. Decision Support Systems 3(4), 309–317.Google Scholar