No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
DO ALL CREATIVE STIMULI WORK THE SAME? INSIGHTS FROM A WORKSHOP WITH PROFESSIONALS
Part of:
Human Behaviour and Design
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 June 2020
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
The paper presents a comparative study that explores the effectiveness of creative stimuli to foster the generation of creative ideas in non-trained professionals during a co-creative design session. Solution-related stimuli (e.g. patents or biological strategies) are confronted with problem-based stimuli (e.g. TRIZ contradictions or Ideal Final Result), which are less studied in the literature. The 40 participants to the experimental activity benefited from both kind of stimuli, but the solution-related ones allowed a more comprehensive exploration of the design space.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.- Copyright
- The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Altshuller, G.S. (1984), Creativity as an exact science: the theory of the solution of inventive problems, Gordon and Breach, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldussu, A., Becattini, N. and Cascini, G. (2011), “Network of contradictions analysis and structured identification of critical control parameters”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 9, pp. 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.03.096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonnardel, N. and Marmèche, E. (2004), “Evocation processes by novice and expert designers: Towards stimulating analogical thinking”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-1690.2004.00307.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardoso, C., Gonçalves, M. and Badke-Schaub, P. (2012), “Searching for inspiration during idea generation: pictures or words?”, Proceedings of DESIGN 2012, the 12th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia.Google Scholar
Cascini, G. (2012), “TRIZ-based anticipatory design of future products and processes”, Journal of Integrated Design & Process Science, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 29–63. https://doi.org/10.3233/jid-2012-0005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chai, C. et al. (2015), “Behavioral analysis of analogical reasoning in design: Differences among designers with different expertise levels”, Design Studies, Vol. 36, pp. 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2014.07.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiu, I. and Shu, L.H. (2012), “Investigating effects of oppositely related semantic stimuli on design concept creativity”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2011.603298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorst, K. and Cross, N. (2001), “Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution”, Design Studies, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberle, B. (2008), Scamper: Creative Games and Activities for Imagination Development, Prufrock Press.Google Scholar
Faure, C. (2004), “Beyond Brainstorming: Effects of Different Group Procedures on Selection of Ideas and Satisfaction with the Process”, The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 13–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2004.tb01229.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fechter, M. et al. (2016), “Impact of collaborative space on team work in engineering design”, Proceedings of the DESIGN 2016 14th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, pp. 975–984.Google Scholar
Fu, K. et al. (2013), “The Meaning of “Near” and “Far”: The Impact of Structuring Design Databases and the Effect of Distance of Analogy on Design Output”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 135 No. 2, pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4023158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, J.S. and Kannengiesser, U. (2004), “Modelling Expertise of Temporary Design Teams”, Journal of Design Research, Vol. 4, pp. 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goel, A.K. (1997), “Design, analogy, and creativity”, IEEE Expert, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 62–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonçalves, M., Cardoso, C. and Badke-Schaub, P. (2016), “Inspiration choices that matter: the selection of external stimuli during ideation”, Design Science, Vol. 2 No. 10, pp. 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2016.10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirtz, J. et al. (2002), “A Functional Basis for Engineering Design: Reconciling and Evolving Previous Efforts”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 13, pp. 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, T.J., Dekoninck, E.A. and Culley, S.J. (2010), “The use of creative stimuli at early stages of industrial product innovation”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 263–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-010-0091-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jia, L. et al. (2019), “Testing ideation performance on a large set of designers: effects of analogical distance”, International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2019.1618736, In Press.Google Scholar
Kao, C.Y. (2014), “Exploring the relationships between analogical, analytical, and creative thinking”, Thinking Skills and Creativity, Vol. 13, pp. 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.03.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, E.B., Miller, D.J. and Niewiarowski, P.H. (2018), “Industrial and Biological Analogies Used Creatively by Business Professionals”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2017.1411631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landis, J.R. and Koch, G.G. (1977), “The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data”, Biometrics, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 159–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lucero, A., Vaajakallio, K. and Dalsgaard, P. (2012), “The dialogue-labs method: process, space and materials as structuring elements to spark dialogue in co-design events”, CoDesign International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2011.609888Google Scholar
Malins, J. et al. (2014), “Supporting the early stages of the product design process: using an integrated collaborative environment”, In: International Conference on Engineering and product design education, University of Twente, The Netherlands, pp. 166–171.Google Scholar
OIPEC (2016), OIPEC: Open innovation Platform for University-Enterprise Collaboration. [Online] Available at: http://www.oipec.eu/ [accessed 2017].Google Scholar
Ozkan, O. and Dogan, F. (2013), “Cognitive strategies of analogical reasoning in design: Differences between expert and novice designers”, Design Studies, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 161–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2012.11.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parvin, M. (2017), Improving ideas novelty based on OTSM-TRIZ model of contradiction, Mechanical Engineering. Milano: PhD Thesis, Politecnico di Milano.Google Scholar
Parvin, M., Cascini, G. and Becattini, N. (2017), “Information extracted from patents as creative stimuli for product innovation”, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 17), Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Saliminamin, S., Becattini, N. and Gaetano, C. (2019), “Sources of creativity stimulation for designing the next generation of technical systems: correlations with R&D designers’ performance”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 30, pp. 133–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-018-0299-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, J.J., Smith, S.M. and Vargas-Hernandez, N. (2003), “Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness”, Design Studies, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 111–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You have
Access
Open access