Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T13:11:31.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IDEA - TOWARDS AN INTERACTIVE TOOL THAT SUPPORTS CREATIVITY SESSIONS IN AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Verena Lisa Kaschub ,
Reto Wechner ,
Lara Krautmacher ,
Daniel Diers ,
Matthias Bues ,
Ralf Lossack ,
Uwe Kloos  and
Oliver Riedel
Verena Lisa Kaschub*
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Excellence advanced Manufacturing Engineering GSaME - University of Stuttgart
Reto Wechner
Affiliation:
Institute of Human Factors and Technology Management IAT - University of Stuttgart
Lara Krautmacher
Affiliation:
Reutlingen University
Daniel Diers
Affiliation:
Institute of Human Factors and Technology Management IAT - University of Stuttgart
Matthias Bues
Affiliation:
Fraunhofer IAO
Ralf Lossack
Affiliation:
Siemens Industry Software GmbH
Uwe Kloos
Affiliation:
Reutlingen University
Oliver Riedel
Affiliation:
Fraunhofer IAO
*
Kaschub, Verena Lisa, GSaME University of Stuttgart, Germany, [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 basis for developing future products in the automotive industry is finding creative and innovative solutions. Ideas can be found by means of creativity methods that support product developers throughout the creative process. Product developers are provided with a variety of different and new methods. This leads to a “method jungle” in which it is difficult for product developers to find the most suitable path. The successful use of methods in product development goes hand in hand with the acceptance and implementation of the methods. Despite the added value, only a low use is observed in the development process. The field of Creativity Support Tools also offers a wide variety of different tools that support the creativity process. Although a chasm exists between the many CSTs that are developed and what creative practitioners actually use. Therefore, previous studies iteratively developed a user-centered tool called “IDEA” that tries to provide a tool that responds to users' needs. The question arises how the developed tool IDEA performs in “real life setting” regarding its UX and usability as well as the creativity method acceptance and level of mental workload.

Keywords

CreativityUser centred designWorkspaces for designIDEAinteractive surface
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 2155 - 2164
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

Becerril, L., Guertler, M. and Longa, E. (2019), “Developing design methods - a conceptual requirement frame-work”, Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 1, pp. 1463–1472.Google Scholar
Brooke, J. (1996), “Sus: a 'quick and dirty' usability”, Usability evaluation in industry, Vol. 189.Google Scholar
Bues, M., Wingert, B. and Riedel, O. (2018), “Vd1: A technical approach to a hybrid 2d and 3d desktop environment”, 2018 IEEE 11th Workshop on Software Engineering and Architectures for Real-Time Interactive Systems, SEARIS 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherry, E. and Latulipe, C. (2014), “Quantifying the creativity support of digital tools through the creativity support index”, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, Vol. 21. http://doi.org/10.1145/2617588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frich, J., Vermeulen, L.M., Remy, C., Biskjaer, M.M. and Dalsgaard, P. (2019), “Mapping the landscape of creativity support tools in hci”, pp. 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabriel, A., Monticolo, D., Camargo, M. and Bourgault, M. (2016), “Creativity support systems: A systematic mapping study”, Thinking Skills and Creativity, Vol. 21, pp. 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, S.G. and Staveland, L.E. (1988), “Development of nasa-tlx (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research”, Advances in Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 139–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaschub, V.L., Lossack, R., Bues, M., Wechner, R., Kraft, T. and Spath, D. (2022), “Towards an integration of 'sense elements' into a 'focus oriented' automotive product development”, pp. 10–10.Google Scholar
Kaschub, V.L., Wechner, R., Lossack, R. and Bues, M. (2021a), “A collaborative and interactive surface concept for early stages of new product development - a multi-stage expert study”, ICPR.Google Scholar
Kaschub, V.L., Wechner, R., Lossack, R. and Bues, M. (2021b), “Idea - towards an interactive intelligent supportive tool that facilitates collaborative creativity sessions”, pp. S.383–392.Google Scholar
Laan, J.D.V.D., Heino, A. and Waard, D.D. (1997), “A simple procedure for the assessment of acceptance of advanced transport telematics”, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 5, pp. 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paas, F.G., Merrienboer, J.J.V. and Adam, J.J. (2016), “Measurement of cognitive load in instructional research”, http://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1994.79.L419, Vol. 79, pp. 419–430. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pms.1994.79.1.419Google Scholar
ReiB, N. (2018), “Ansatze zur steigerung der methodenakzeptanz in agilen prozessen der pge - produktgenera- tionsentwicklung”.Google Scholar
Sun, G. and Yao, S. (2012), “Investigating the relation between cognitive load and creativity in the conceptual design process”, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 56, pp. 308–312. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1071181312561072CrossRefGoogle Scholar