Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/276202956
READS
116
5 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Diana P. Moreno
Lucienne Blessing
University of Luxembourg
University of Luxembourg
17 PUBLICATIONS 18 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Kristin L. Wood
Claus Vgele
University of Luxembourg
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Proceedings of the ASME 2015 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences &
Computers and Information in Engineering Conference
IDETC/CIE 2015
August 2-5, 2015, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
DETC2015-47929
Kristin Wood
Singapore University of
Technology and Design
Singapore, Singapore
Lucinne Blessing
University of Luxembourg
Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Claus Vgele
University of Luxembourg
Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Alberto Hernndez
Instituto Tecnolgico y de Estudios
Superiores de Monterrey
Monterrey Mexico
ABSTRACT
1. INTRODUCTION
2. BACKGROUND
In the study two different Design-by-Analogy methods were
introduced: WordTree and SCAMPER.
2.1. SCAMPER
This method is a semi-directed ideation approach which
structures, expands and extends Osborn's brainstorming
recommendations [19]. It has seven operator categories that may
be used to develop solutions to a design problem: (S) Substitute,
(C) Combine, (A) Adapt, (M) Modify/Magnify/Minimize, (P)
Put to other uses, (E) Eliminate, and (R) Reverse/Rearrange [20].
For each operator category, a set of questions are posed to direct
and redirect analogical search to solve a problem. The operator
categories and related questions are directives to systematically
search for solutions. As an illustration, if a designer is asked to
improve the portability of battery chargers, she may choose (M)
Individual
Performance
Contextual
Factor Name
Negative-Positive Attributes
Entertainment
Motivation
Inspiration
Easiness
Interest
Easiness
Inspiration
Commitment
Concentration
Level of
success
Time
Boring Fun
De-motivating Motivating
Frustrating Inspiring
Difficult Easy
Uninteresting - Interesting
Difficult - Easy
Frustrating - Inspiring
Minimal effort - Worked hard
Unfocussed - Focused
Unsuccessful - Successful
Time than ideas - Ideas than time
MannWhitney
Test
The ideation activity was
NT in Ph II
WT in Ph II
SCA in Ph II
NT
WT
SCA
Easiness
(of activity)
0.39
0.93
0.38
0.22
0.00
-0.38
Easiness
(of problem)
0.03
0.40
-0.13
0.39
0.20
-0.42
Motivation
Inspiration
Easiness
Time
The problem was
Phase
II
Phase
I
Entertainment
-0.03
-0.67
-0.17
-0.06
0.07
0.08
I had
more
Performance on the
activity
Interest
Easiness
Inspiration
Commitment
Concentration
Level of success
Time
NT
WT
SCA
NT
WT
SCA
NT
WT
SCA
NT
WT
SCA
NT
WT
SCA
NT
WT
SCA
NT
WT
SCA
NT
WT
SCA
NT
WT
SCA
NT
WT
SCA
NT
WT
SCA
Significance level ()
0.666
0.667
0.170
0.109
0.102
0.181
0.776
0.759
0.204
0.736
0.013
0.007
0.797
0.550
0.898
0.211
0.557
0.219
0.504
0.911
0.418
0.797
0.212
0.453
0.587
0.091
0.166
0.375
0.025
0.105
0.983
0.120
0.521
0.05
p-value
KruskalWallis
Test
(Ph1)
KruskalWallis
Test
(Ph2)
0.103
0.423
0.005
0.580
0.816
0.546
0.203
0.041
0.128
0.305
0.156
0.022
0.489
0.566
0.627
0.150
0.261
0.355
0.024
0.430
0.249
0.978
0.10
5.1. Motivation
Motivation -which was explicitly asked in the
questionnaire- appears to be a significant factor (see Table 3).
The change in motivation before and after learning and
applying the assigned ideation condition tested with MannWhitney showed that all participants felt initially motivated in
phase I, and then, in phase II, the self-perceived motivation level
reduced significantly for the participants assigned in the
WordTree ideation condition. Considering that the results in
Annex A show that the task was perceived as more difficult in
phase II, the change in motivation for WordTree may imply that
the method demands more cognitive investment, interpretations
and proficiency that may reduce participants self-perceived
motivation. Although participants that were assigned to control
ideation condition in phase II exhibited a significant magnitude
difference in phase I with respect to their WordTree and
SCAMPER counterparts, this result is believed to be an outlier,
especially considering that the results for same control group in
phase II show no statistical difference when compared with the
results that WordTree and SCAMPER had in phase I (KruskalWallis Test with p-value=0.560), and they were working under
the same paradigm of not been assisted by an specific ideation
method.
Motivation is a predictor for Novelty for both, control and
WordTree conditions in phase II, however, the type of relation
between motivation and novelty is inverse, i.e. the higher the
self-perceived motivation, the lower the novelty result. It is
interesting to notice that motivation also predicts in phase II the
amount of repeated ideas for participants in control condition,
and that their relation is inverse i.e. the higher the self-perceived
motivation, the lower the amount of repeated ideas. This may
imply a self-regulation mechanism in non-assisted scenarios,
where a self-triggered motivation may alleviate the tendency to
repeat ideas.
Inspiration and Easiness of the activity did not have a
statistically significant change before and after learning and
applying the assigned ideation condition, they also do not appear
be good predictors for any of the evaluated creativity metrics.
Therefore, the incubation emergence after becoming frustrated
due to exhaustion of creativity capabilities stated by Lubart et. al
(2003) could not be verified or may have been mitigated with the
ideation conditions.
5.2. Performance factors
With respect to the evaluated performance factors
commitment, concentration and level of success, their change
before and after learning and applying the assigned ideation
condition showed that in phase I all participants felt their
performance to be focused (concentration), and in phase II that
perception was reduced significantly for WordTree participants.
This may be attributed to the same reasons proposed for the
REFERENCES
5.6. Conclusion
There is still much that can be learned about the mechanisms
and interactions by which psychological and cognitive factors
influence creative performance in design, especially considering
that present study considers only a set of possible factors that
may influence creativity outcome; and that creativity outcome
may be assessed though additional metrics than the ones used in
this study.
The present study aims to explore the influences of a
reduced set of factors on the creative performance of designers
using different Design by Analogy (DbA) ideation methods. The
results presented here are only preliminary and further research
is required to expand our understanding of design creativity, in
order to better support designers during early design stages.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The present project is supported by the National Research
Fund, Luxembourg. The authors wish to acknowledge the
sponsorship of University of Luxembourg to conduct the
presented work, and also wish to thank the support of the
ITESM-BMGI Lean Six Sigma Program and the SUTD-MIT
International Design Centre (IDC). Any opinions, findings, or
recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the sponsors.
ANNEX A
PhaseII
PhaseI
QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS
ANNEX B
REGRESSION RESULTS
Phase I Regression results
Entertainment
Regression
Coefficients
QuantityRaw
QuantityFiltered
Fixation
Repeated
Constant
BoringFun
NT
7.9
6.9
0.1
0.9
WT
5.7
5.0
0.4
0.8
SCA
9.7
7.4
0.3
2.2
NT
2.27
1.89
0.02
0.38
WT
1.18
0.20
0.06
0.97
SCA
0.12
0.42
0.01
0.54
Theideationactivitywas
Motivation
Inspiration
Demotivating
Motivating
NT
2.00
1.66
0.01
0.34
WT
6.54
4.22
0.04
2.32
SCA
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.04
Frustrating
Inspiring
NT
1.59
0.93
0.05
0.66
WT
9.93
7.46
0.07
2.46
SCA
0.23
1.45
0.04
1.22
Theproblemwas
Easiness
Easiness
Interest
DifficultEasy
Uninteresting
Interesting
NT
0.40
0.45
0.01
0.05
WT
1.00
1.33
0.06
0.33
SCA
2.08
0.74
0.07
1.34
NT
0.98
1.10
0.03
0.12
WT
1.11
0.51
0.04
0.60
SCA
1.30
1.00
0.02
0.30
DifficultEasy
NT
1.37
0.94
0.03
0.43
WT
9.18
6.94
0.05
2.25
SCA
6.19
2.59
0.15
3.60
Inspiration
Frustrating
Inspiring
NT
1.87
1.95
0.03
0.09
WT
8.49
5.58
0.04
2.91
SCA
4.62
1.12
0.12
3.51
Performanceontheactivity
Commitment
Concentration
Levelofsuccess
Minimaleffort
Workedhard
NT
2.53
2.16
0.00
0.37
WT
0.82
2.04
0.08
1.23
SCA
4.15
0.69
0.15
3.46
Unfocussed
Focused
NT
0.76
0.60
0.01
0.16
WT
6.20
4.90
0.04
1.30
SCA
3.00
3.45
0.11
0.46
Unsuccessful
Successful
NT
0.24
0.37
0.06
0.61
WT
4.43
4.07
0.16
0.36
SCA
0.30
0.64
0.04
0.34
Ihadmore
Time
Timethanideas
Ideasthantime
NT
0.64
0.69
0.01
0.05
WT
0.79
1.10
0.01
0.31
SCA
1.33
0.70
0.05
0.63
Novelty
QuantityRaw
QuantityFiltered
Fixation
Repeated
Constant
BoringFun
NT
0.0
8.8
4.6
0.5
4.2
SignificanceLevels()
InfluencingFactors
WT
0.7
8.4
5.6
0.5
2.8
SCA
1.1
14.2
7.5
0.5
6.7
NT
0.24
1.02
0.23
0.08
1.25
WT
2.50
1.52
1.49
0.14
0.03
SCA
0.82
1.00
0.42
0.04
0.58
0.05
Entertainment
Theideationactivitywas
Motivation
Inspiration
Demotivating
Motivating
NT
0.20
1.60
0.07
0.08
1.68
WT
3.59
5.29
2.24
0.30
3.05
SCA
0.17
1.41
0.50
0.01
0.91
Frustrating
Inspiring
NT
0.07
0.30
0.20
0.01
0.09
WT
0.06
3.31
3.25
0.06
0.06
SCA
0.16
1.54
1.39
0.02
0.15
Theproblemwas
Easiness
Easiness
Interest
DifficultEasy
Uninteresting
Interesting
NT
0.03
0.46
0.56
0.05
0.10
WT
0.51
2.81
1.67
0.15
1.13
SCA
0.06
2.67
0.59
0.10
3.26
NT
0.00
0.31
0.56
0.04
0.87
WT
1.69
1.59
0.11
0.21
1.48
SCA
0.09
0.46
0.06
0.02
0.40
DifficultEasy
NT
0.01
0.88
0.25
0.01
0.63
WT
1.96
2.73
2.40
0.01
0.33
SCA
0.36
0.93
0.20
0.01
0.73
Inspiration
Frustrating
Inspiring
NT
0.00
1.13
0.18
0.02
0.94
WT
0.37
1.32
2.14
0.07
0.82
SCA
0.01
2.83
1.03
0.00
1.80
Performanceontheactivity
Commitment
Concentration
Levelofsuccess
Minimaleffort
Workedhard
NT
0.08
1.92
0.58
0.05
1.35
WT
0.02
2.59
0.45
0.04
2.14
SCA
0.04
1.44
0.18
0.01
1.26
Unfocussed
Focused
NT
0.05
0.39
0.19
0.07
0.58
WT
1.34
1.36
1.11
0.03
0.25
SCA
0.04
0.01
0.37
0.03
0.36
Unsuccessful
Successful
NT
0.10
0.62
1.33
0.09
0.71
WT
1.90
7.07
4.86
0.13
2.22
SCA
0.57
3.49
2.66
0.08
0.83
Ihadmore
Time
Timethanideas
Ideasthantime
NT
0.03
1.15
0.87
0.06
0.27
WT
0.03
2.30
0.41
0.22
1.89
SCA
0.07
0.39
1.34
0.05
0.95
0.10
Motivation
Inspiration
Easiness
Interest
Easiness
Inspiration
Commitment
Concentration
Levelofsuccess
Time
Influencing factor: if for a given metric it affects more than one method, or, if for a given method it affects more than one metric
10