Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T16:29:25.129Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE INFLUENCE OF DESIGN BRIEF INFORMATION ON CREATIVE OUTCOMES BY NOVICE AND ADVANCED STUDENTS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Georgios Koronis ,
Hernan Casakin ,
Arlindo Silva  and
Jacob Kai Siang Kang
Georgios Koronis*
Affiliation:
Singapore University of Technology and Design
Hernan Casakin
Affiliation:
Ariel University
Arlindo Silva
Affiliation:
Singapore University of Technology and Design
Jacob Kai Siang Kang
Affiliation:
Singapore University of Technology and Design
*
Koronis, Georgios, Singapore University of Technology and Design, Singapore, [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.

This study centers on using different types of brief information to support creative outcomes in architectural and engineering design and its relation to design expertise. We explore the influence of design briefs characterized by abstract representations and/or instructions to frame design problems on the creativity of concept sketches produced by novice and advanced students. Abstract representations of problem requirements served as stimuli to encourage associative thinking and knowledge transfer. The Ishikawa/Fishbone Diagram was used to foster design restructuring and to modify viewpoints about the main design drives and goals. The design outcomes generated by novice and advanced engineering/architecture students were assessed for their creativity using a pairwise experimental design. Results indicated that advanced students generated more novel design solutions while also contributing the most useful solutions overall. Implications for creativity in design education and professional practice are presented. Educational programs aimed at promoting creativity in the design studio may find it helpful to consider that the way design briefs are constructed can either promote or inhibit different aspects of design creativity.

Keywords

CreativityEducationConceptual designAbstract representationReframing
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 3041 - 3050
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), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Amabile, T.M. (1982), “The Social-Psychology of Creativity: A Consensual Assessment Technique”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 997–101310.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amabile, T.M. (1996), Creativity in Context, 1st ed., Westview Press, Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
Boucharenc, C. G. (2006). Research on basic design education: An international survey. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16, 1–30.10.1007/s10798-005-2110-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budge, K., Beale, C., and Lynas, E. (2013). A chaotic intervention: Creativity and peer learning in design education. iJADE, Vol. 32, pp. 146–156.Google Scholar
Camburn, B.A., Auernhammer, J.M., Sng, K.H.E., Mignone, P.J., Arlitt, R.M., Perez, K.B., Huang, Z., Basnet, S., Blessing, L.T. and Wood, K.L. (2017), Design Innovation: A Study of Integrated Practice. No. 58219, p. V007T006A031.10.1115/DETC2017-68382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlgren, L., Rauth, I. and Elmquist, M. (2016), “Framing Design Thinking: The Concept in Idea and Enactment”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 38–57.10.1111/caim.12153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casakin, H., and Kreitler, S. (2008) Correspondences and divergences in creativity evaluations between architects and students. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 35, pp. 666–678.10.1068/b3405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casakin (2010). Visual analogy, visual displays, and the nature of design problems: the effect of expertise. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 37, pp. 170–188.10.1068/b35073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casakin, H. & Kreitler, S. (2010) Motivation for Creativity in Architectural Design and Engineering Design Students: Implications for Design Education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, Vol. 20, No. 4, 477–493.10.1007/s10798-009-9103-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, W. (2016). Exploring the Learning Problems and Resource Usage of Undergraduate Industrial Design Students in Design Studio Courses. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, Vol 26, pp. 461–48710.1007/s10798-015-9315-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiaans, H., & Dorst, K. H. (1992). Cognitive models in industrial design engineering: a protocol study. Design theory and methodology, Vol. 42 No. 1, 131–140.Google Scholar
Christiaans, H., & Venselaar, K. (2005). Creativity in Design Engineering and the Role of Knowledge: Modelling the Expert. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 217–236. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10798-004-1904-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coyne, R. (1997). Creativity as commonplace. Design Studies, Vol. 18, pp. 135–141.10.1016/S0142-694X(97)85456-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craft, A. (2006). Fostering Creativity with Wisdom, Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 351–362.10.1080/03057640600865835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, D., M. Hender, J., Lee Rodgers, T., & Santanen, E. (2006). Identifying Quality, Novel, and Creative Ideas: Constructs and Scales for Idea Evaluation. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 7 No. 10, pp. 646–699. http://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00106Google Scholar
Derbaix, C., & Vanhamme, J. (2003). Inducing word-of-mouth by eliciting surprise? A pilot investigation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24, 99–116.10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00157-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dominowski, R L. (1995). Productive problem solving. In: The Creative Cognition Approach, Cambridge, MA, pp. 73–95.Google Scholar
Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,10.7551/mitpress/10096.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstone, R, Sakamoto, Y (2003) The transfer of abstract principles governing complex adaptive systems. Vol. 46. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0285(02)00519-4.Google ScholarPubMed
Goncalves, M.; Cardoso, C.; Badke-Schaub, P. 2014, What inspires designers? Preferences on inspirational approaches during idea generation. Design Studies, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 29–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2013.09.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong, E., & Milgram, R. M. (2008). Preventing Talent Loss. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ishikawa, K., (1982), What is Quality Control? Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliff, New York, NY.Google Scholar
James, T.J.Y., Kuan, Y.K., Parveen, H., Huang, Z.X., Ganeshkumar, R., Behera, J., Sanaei, R., Otto, K. and Hölttä-Otto, K. (2014), “An Overview of Design Cognition between Experts and Novices”, In: International Conference on Advanced Design Research and Education 2014, Singapore, pp. 156–160. http://doi.org/10.3850/978-981-09-1348-9_041Google Scholar
Koronis, G., Silva, A., Kang, J., & Yogiaman, C. (2020). How to Best Frame A Design Brief to Maximize Novelty and Usefulness in Idea Generation. Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference, Vol 1, pp. 1745–1754. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsd.2020.77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koronis, G., Chia, P.Z., Kang, J., Siang, K., Silva, A., Yogiaman, C. and Raghunath, N. (2019), “An Empirical Study on the Impact of Design Brief Information on the Creativity of Design Outcomes with Consideration of Gender, and Gender Diversity”, Journal of Mechanical Design. Vol. 141 No. 7 pp. 071102. http://doi.org/10.1115/1.4043207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koronis, G., Meurzec, R. W., Silva, A., Leite, M., Henriques, E., & Yogiaman, C. (2019b). Cross-Cultural Differences in Creative Ideation: A Comparison between Singaporean and Portuguese Students. Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 89–98. http://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.12Google Scholar
Linsey, J. S., Markman, A. B., & 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, pp. 041009. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4006145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linsey, J.S., Tseng, I., Fu, K., Cagan, J., Wood, K.L. and Schunn, C. (2010), “A Study of Design Fixation, Its Mitigation and Perception in Engineering Design Faculty”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 132 No. 4, pp. 041009.10.1115/1.4001110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linsey, J. S., Wood, K. L., and Markman, A. B.. 2008. “Modality and representation in analogy.” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing. Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 85–100. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060408000061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madni, A. (2012). Elegant Systems Design: Creative Fusion of Simplicity and Power. Vol. 15 No.3, pp. 347–354. https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21209.Google Scholar
Meurzec, R.W., Koh, B., Koronis, G., Kang, J., Yogiaman, C., Silva, A. (2019). Assessing Regulatory Focus Differences in Creative Ideation: An Examination of Prevention and Promotion Mindsets on Novelty and Usefulness, Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 49–55. http://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.8.Google Scholar
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/S0890060416000068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parnes, S.J. (1967) Creative Behavior Guidebook. Scribners, New York.Google Scholar
Rittel, H., and Melving, W. (1984). Planning problems are wicked problems. In Cross, N. (Ed.). Developments in design methodology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 123–143.Google Scholar
Ree, M. J., Carretta, T. R., & Teachout, M. S. (1995). Role of ability and prior knowledge in complex training performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(6), pp. 721–730. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.6.721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarkar, P., & Chakrabarti, A. (2011). Assessing design creativity. Design Studies, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 348–383. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seelig, T. L., 2015, InGenius: A Crash Course on Creativity, HarperOne, New York.Google Scholar
Schön, Donald A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Valkenburg, A. C. (2000). The reflective practice in product design teams. Technische Universiteit Delft. http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:8bbe62ab-e761-46f7-b386-3ead14a9d56dGoogle Scholar
Zahner, D., Nickerson, J. V., Tversky, B., Corter, J. E., & Ma, J. (2010). A fix for fixation? Rerepresenting and abstracting as creative processes in the design of information systems. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 231–244. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060410000077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar