Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T03:26:57.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DIFFERENCES IN ANALOGICAL SOURCE SELECTIONS BETWEEN DESIGNERS AND NON-DESIGNERS DURING THE COLLABORATIVE ANALOGICAL DESIGN PROCESS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Han Lu ,
Gang Sun ,
Jingyu Xu ,
Pujie Su ,
Xingyue Tang  and
Yajing Zhang
Han Lu*
Affiliation:
Tongji University
Gang Sun
Affiliation:
Tongji University
Jingyu Xu
Affiliation:
Tongji University
Pujie Su
Affiliation:
Tongji University
Xingyue Tang
Affiliation:
Tongji University
Yajing Zhang
Affiliation:
Tongji University
*
Lu, Han, Tongji University, China, People's Republic of, [email protected]

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 selection of an analogical source is a critical step in the design-by-analogy process. Previous researchers have explored the reasons and preferences of individual designers or design teams in selecting analogical sources. Non-designers, who instead have more knowledge of other fields, may offer new possibilities for retrieving novel analogical sources. This study focuses on differences in the selection of analogical sources between collaborative design teams composed of designers and nondesigners. There are indeed significant differences in the selection of the source type, the reasons for selecting the source, the level of abstraction in inspiration stimuli, and the novelty of design ideas between designers and non-designers. This work may provide theoretical guidance for the development of collaborative design tools and methods for teams composed of designers and non-designers with different knowledge bases.

Keywords

CreativityIndustrial designAnalogical sourceCollaborative designCollaborative analogical design
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 1485 - 1494
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
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), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Atkinson, P. (2017), “Design for non-designers”, The Design Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 303–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1303299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alipour, L., Faizi, M., Moradi, A.M. and Akrami, G. (2017), “The impact of designers' goals on design-by-analogy”, Design Studies, Vol. 51, pp. 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2017.04.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleton, E.A. and Short, T.D. (2008), “New product development ‘according to hoyle’: Part 1—the analogy”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 285–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820701402880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, L.J., Ormerod, T.C. and Morley, N.J. (2004), “Spontaneous analogising in engineering design: A comparative analysis of experts and novices”, Design Studies, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 495–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.05.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassi, A. (2017), Design Contemporaneo: Istruzioni per L'uso, Il mulino, Bologna.Google Scholar
Cross, N. (2004), “Expertise in design: An overview”, Design Studies, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 427–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.06.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cao, J., Xiong, Y., Li, Y., Liu, L. and Wang, M. (2018), “Differences between beginning and advanced design students in analogical reasoning during idea generation: Evidence from Eye Movements”, Cognition, Technology & Work, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 505–520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-018-0477-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chai, C., Cen, F., Ruan, W., Yang, C. and Li, H. (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.2014.07.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cai, H., Do, E.Y.-L. and Zimring, C.M. (2010), “Extended linkography and distance graph in design evaluation: An empirical study of the dual effects of inspiration sources in Creative Design”, Design Studies, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 146–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2009.12.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casakin, H. (2004), “Visual analogy as a cognitive strategy in the design process. expert versus novice performance”, Journal of Design Research, Vol. 4 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1504/jdr.2004.009846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casakin, H. (2010), “Visual analogy, visual displays, and the nature of design problems: The effect of expertise”, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 170–188. https://doi.org/10.1068/b35073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, J., Fu, K., Schunn, C., Cagan, J., Wood, K. and Kotovsky, K. (2011), “On the benefits and pitfalls of Analogies for Innovative Design: Ideation performance based on analogical distance, commonness, and modality of examples”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 133 No. 8. http://doi.org/10.1115/1.4004396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, J., Fu, K., Schunn, C., Cagan, J., Wood, K. and Kotovsky, K. (2015), “On the benefits and pitfalls of Analogies for Innovative Design: Ideation performance based on analogical distance, commonness, and modality of examples”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 133 No. 8. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4004396.Google Scholar
Dykes, T.H., Rodgers, P.A. and Smyth, M. (2009), “Towards a new disciplinary framework for Contemporary Creative Design Practice”, CoDesign, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880902910417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, C. M., Stacey, M. K. and Clarkson, P. J. (2000). “Algorithms and inspirations: creative reuse of design experience”, Proceedings of the Greenwich 2000 symposium: digital creativity.Google Scholar
Fu, K., Chan, J., Cagan, J., Kotovsky, K., Schunn, C. and Wood, K. (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. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4023158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D. (1983), “Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy*”, Cognitive Science, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3.Google Scholar
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, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 215–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2013.799309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. and Smolkov, M. (2006), “Variances in the impact of visual stimuli on design problem solving performance”, Design Studies, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 549–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2006.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansson, D.G. and Smith, S.M. (1991), “Design fixation”, Design Studies, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694x(91)90003-f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kokotovich, V. and Dorst, K. (2016), “The art of ‘stepping back’: Studying levels of abstraction in a diverse design team”, Design Studies, Vol. 46, pp. 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.07.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keshwani, S. and Chakrabarti, A. (2017), “Influence of analogical domains and comprehensiveness in explanation of analogy on the novelty of designs”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 381–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-016-0246-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keshwani, S., Lenau, T.A., Ahmed-Kristensen, S. and Chakrabarti, A. (2017), “Comparing novelty of designs from biological-inspiration with those from brainstorming”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 28 No. 10-12, pp. 654–680. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2017.1393504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linsey, J.S. (2007), Design-by-Analogy and Representation in Innovative Engineering Concept Generation, thesis, University of Texas, Austin, TX.Google Scholar
Linsey, J.S., Markman, A.B. and Wood, K.L. (2012), “Design by analogy: A study of the WordTree method for problem re-representation”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 134 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4006145.CrossRefGoogle 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. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moreno, D.P., Blessing, L.T., Yang, M.C., Hernández, A.A. and Wood, K.L. (2016), “Overcoming design fixation: Design by analogy studies and nonintuitive findings”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0890060416000068.CrossRefGoogle 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.2012.11.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perttula, M. and Sipilä, P. (2007), “The idea exposure paradigm in design idea generation”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820600679679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qiu, J.P.，Shu, F.，Lu, J.，and Zhou, Z.F. (2021) “Research on the matching of ESI discipline classification and first-class discipline category in China for assessment requirements”, Journal of Chongqing University (Social Science Edition), Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 110–121. https://doi.org/10.11835/j.issn.1008-5831.pj.2020.10.001.Google Scholar
Self, J. (2017), “Resolving wicked problems: Appositional reasoning and sketch representation”, The Design Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 313–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1301070.CrossRefGoogle 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0142-694x(02)00034-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srinivasan, V., Song, B., Luo, J., Subburaj, K., Elara, M.R., Blessing, L. and Wood, K. (2018), “Does analogical distance affect performance of ideation?”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 140 No. 7. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4040165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srinivasan, V. and Chakrabarti, A. (2010), “Investigating novelty–outcome relationships in engineering design”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1017/S089006041000003X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Lugt, R. (2000), “Developing a graphic tool for creative problem solving in design groups”, Design Studies, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 505–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0142-694x(00)00021-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verganti, R. (2008), “Design, Meanings, and Radical Innovation: A Metamodel and A Research Agenda”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 436–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00313.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, L., Kittur, A. and Kraut, R.E. (2016), “Distributed analogical idea generation”, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar