Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T04:57:49.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A systematic approach to assessing novelty, requirement satisfaction, and creativity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2018

B.S.C. Ranjan ,
L. Siddharth Open the ORCID record for L. Siddharth [Opens in a new window]  and
Amaresh Chakrabarti
B.S.C. Ranjan
Affiliation:
Centre for Product Design and Manufacturing, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, 560012, India
L. Siddharth*
Affiliation:
Centre for Product Design and Manufacturing, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, 560012, India
Amaresh Chakrabarti
Affiliation:
Centre for Product Design and Manufacturing, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, 560012, India
*
Author for correspondence: L. Siddharth, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is well-known that creativity is crucial for sustaining a product against competition. Many factors have been proposed in the literature as indicators of creativity, among which outcome-characteristics-based factors are considered the most reliable; among these, the creativity of an outcome is often indicated by two major factors: novelty and usefulness. Only a few studies address as to how creativity assessment methods and their results can be used during the design process. To systematically address the issue of how to influence creativity of design solutions, the following questions have been framed. (1) Which factors should be used as indicators of creativity consistently across different phases of the engineering design process? (2) How can creativity be assessed in terms of these factors during the engineering design process? In this work, we consider novelty and usefulness as the necessary factors for creativity. It is found, however, that it is not possible to directly assess the usefulness of outcomes during the design process. Therefore, requirement satisfaction is used as a proxy for usefulness. We propose a creativity assessment method that uses novelty and requirement satisfaction as indicators for creativity; the method can be used for assessing not only complete products but also ideas or concepts, as they evolve through the phases of the design process. The application of the method in design is explained using a detailed example from a case study.

Keywords

Creativitynoveltyproduct-spacerequirement-satisfactionrequirements-treesystems
Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 32 , Special Issue 4: Design Creativity , November 2018 , pp. 390 - 414
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

Blessing, LT and Chakrabarti, A (2009). DRM: A Design Research Methodology. London: Springer.Google Scholar
Brown, RT (1989) Creativity. In Glover, JA, Ronning, RR and Reynolds, CR (eds), Handbook of Creativity. Boston, MA: Springer US, pp. 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-5356-1_1Google Scholar
Bruner, JS (1962) The conditions of creativity. In Gruber HE, Terrell G and Wertheimer M (eds), Contemporary Approaches to Creative Thinking: A Symposium Held at the University of Colorado. Behavioral Science Series. The Atherton Press, pp. 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1037/13117-001.Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, A (2006) Defining and supporting design creativity, in: DS 36: Proceedings DESIGN 2006, the 9th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia.Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, A and Khadilkar, P. (2003) A measure for assessing product novelty, in: DS 31: Proceedings of ICED 03, the 14th International Conference on Engineering Design, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, A, Sarkar, P, Leelavathamma, B and Nataraju, B (2005) A functional representation for aiding biomimetic and artificial inspiration of new ideas. AIE EDAM 19, 113–132.Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, A, Siddharth, L, Dinakar, M, Panda, M, Palegar, N and Keshwani, S (2017) Idea-Inspire 3.0 - A Tool for Analogical Design. Presented at the International Conference on Research into Design (ICoRD'17), Springer Singapore, p. 10.Google Scholar
Christiaans, HH (2002) Creativity as a design criterion. Communication Research Journal 14, 41–54.Google Scholar
Chulvi, V, Mulet, E, Chakrabarti, A, López-Mesa, B and González-Cruz, C (2012) Comparison of the degree of creativity in the design outcomes using different design methods. Journal of Engineering Design 23(4), 241–269.Google Scholar
Dorst, K and Cross, N (2001) Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies 22(5), 425–437.Google Scholar
Fox, HH (1963) A critique on creativity in science. In Essays on Creativity in the Sciences. New York: New York University Press, NY, New York University. Division of General Education. Creative Science Seminar; Science – Methodology; Creation (Literary, artistic, etc.), pp. 123–152.Google Scholar
Garcia, R and Calantone, R (2002) A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management 19, 110–132.Google Scholar
Gomaa, WH and Fahmy, AA (2013) A survey of text similarity approaches. International Journal of Computer Applications 68, 13–18.Google Scholar
Grace, K and Maher, ML (2015) Surprise and Reformulation as Meta-cognitive Processes in Creative Design, Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference on Advances in Cognitive Systems, Atlanta Georgia, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
Grace, K and Maher, ML (2016) Surprise-triggered Reformulation of Design Goals, Proceedings of AAAI.Google Scholar
Grace, K, Maher, ML, Fisher, D and Brady, K (2015) Data-intensive evaluation of design creativity using novelty, value, and surprise. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation 3(3–4), 125–147.Google Scholar
Hart, SL and Christensen, CM (2002) The great leap: driving innovation from the base of the pyramid. MIT Sloan Management Review 44, 51.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.Google Scholar
Ip, CY, Lapadat, D, Sieger, L and Regli, WC (2002), June. Using shape distributions to compare solid models. In Proceedings of the seventh ACM symposium on Solid modeling and applications (pp. 273–280). ACM.Google Scholar
Jackson, PW and Messick, S (1965) The person, the product, and the response: conceptual problems in the assessment of creativity. Journal of Personality 33, 309–329.Google Scholar
Jonassen, D, Strobel, J and Lee, CB (2006) Everyday problem solving in engineering: lessons for engineering educators. Journal Engineering Education 95, 139–151.Google Scholar
Jordanous, A (2012) A standardised procedure for evaluating creative systems: computational creativity evaluation based on what it is to be creative. Cognitive Computing 4, 246–279.Google Scholar
Keshwani, S and Chakrabarti, A (2017) January. Towards Automatic Classification of Description of Analogies into SAPPhIRE Constructs. In International Conference on Research into Design (pp. 643–655). Springer, Singapore.Google Scholar
Lee, DG and Suh, NP (2005) Axiomatic Design and Fabrication of Composite Structures-Applications in Robots, Machine Tools, and Automobiles. Oxford University Press. ISBN-10 0195178777 732.Google Scholar
Lopez-Mesa, B, Mulet, E, Vidal, R and Thompson, G (2011) Effects of additional stimuli on idea-finding in design teams. Journal of Engineering Design 22, 31–54.Google Scholar
Lozano, DJ (2009) Metodología para la eco-innovación en el diseño para desensamblado de productos industriales.Google Scholar
Ludden, GD, Schifferstein, HN and Hekkert, P (2008) Surprise as a design strategy. Design Issues 24, 28–38.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, DW (1970) Creativity: a multi-faceted phenomenon. In Rolansky JD (ed.), Creativity: A Discussion at the Nobel Conference. Holland: North-Holland, pp. 17–32.Google Scholar
Maher, ML and Fisher, DH (2012) Using AI to evaluate creative designs, in: DS 73-1 Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Design Creativity Volume 1.Google Scholar
Moss, J (1966) Measuring Creative Abilities in Junior High School Industrial Arts. Monograph 2. (ERIC No. ED022023), Minnesota Tests of Creative Thinking. American Council on Industrial Arts Teacher Education, Washington, DC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED022023.Google Scholar
Mulet, E, Royo, M, Chulvi, V and Galán, J (2017) Relationship between the degree of creativity and the quality of design outcomes. DYNA 84, 38–45.Google Scholar
Nelson, BA, Wilson, JO, Rosen, D and Yen, J (2009) Refined metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Design Studies 30, 737–743.Google Scholar
Newell, A, Shaw, JC and Simon, HA (1959) The Processes of Creative Thinking (p. 2). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.Google Scholar
Oral-B (2017) http://constructionmanuals.tpub.com/14027/img/14027_31_2.jpg.Google Scholar
Oral-B Pro 5000 (2017) https://moo.review/oral-b-pro-5000-electric-toothbrush-review/.Google Scholar
Oman, SK, Tumer, IY, Wood, K and Seepersad, C (2013) A comparison of creativity and innovation metrics and sample validation through in-class design projects. Research in Engineering Design, 24, 65–92.Google Scholar
Pahl, G and Beitz, W (1988) Engineering design: a systematic approach. Nasa Stirecon Technical Reports A 89, 47350.Google Scholar
Peeters, J, Verhaegen, PA, Vandevenne, D and Duflou, JR (2010) Refined metrics for measuring novelty in ideation. IDMME Virtual Concept Research in Interaction Design, Oct, pp.20–22.Google Scholar
Provancher, WR (2009) Climbing Robot Using Pendular Motion. Google Patents.Google Scholar
Qian, L and Gero, JS (1996) Function–behavior–structure paths and their role in analogy-based design. Artificial intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 10, 289–312.Google Scholar
Sarkar, P and Chakrabarti, A (2007) Development of a method for assessing design creativity. Presented at the International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED’07), Paris, France, pp. 79/1–12. https://www.designsociety.org/publication/25506/Development+of+a+Method+for+Assessing+Design+Creativity.Google Scholar
Sarkar, P and Chakrabarti, A (2011) Assessing design creativity. Design Studies 32, 348–383.Google Scholar
Sarkar, P and Chakrabarti, A (2015) Creativity: generic definition, tests, factors and methods. International Journal of Design Science and Technology 21, 7–37.Google Scholar
Shah, JJ, Smith, SM and Vargas-Hernandez, N (2003) Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Design Studies 24, 111–134.Google Scholar
Siddharth, L and Sarkar, P (2017) A methodology for predicting the effect of engineering design changes. Procedia CIRP Elsevier 60, 452–457.Google Scholar
Siddharth, L and Sarkar, P (2018) A multiple-domain matrix support to capture rationale for engineering design changes. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering 18, 021014-021014-11. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4039850.Google Scholar
Srinivasan, V and Chakrabarti, A (2010 a) An integrated model of designing. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering 10, 031013.Google Scholar
Srinivasan, V and Chakrabarti, A (2010 b) Investigating novelty–outcome relationships in engineering design. Artificial intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 24, 161–178.Google Scholar
Stapleless (2017) http://www.plus-america.com/2010/stationery/images/products/paper_clinch/large/image_1.jpg.Google Scholar