Effects of additional stimuli on idea-finding in design teams

Journal of Engineering Design

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 31-54

  López Mesa, Belinda ^a,b   Mulet, Elena ^a   Vidal, Rosario ^a   Thompson, Graham ^c  

^a UNIVERSITAT JAUME I   (Spain)

^b LULEÅ UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Designing in teams; Idea finding; Protocol analysis; Stimuli

Indexed keywords

A-FRAMES; CONTINUOUS FLUX; DESIGN ACTIVITY; DESIGN METHOD; DESIGN PROCESS; DESIGN TEAM; DESIGNING IN TEAMS; IDEA FINDING; PROTOCOL ANALYSIS; STIMULI; TEAM MEMBERS;

EXPERIMENTS;

DESIGN;

EID: 78650082622     PISSN: 09544828     EISSN: 14661837     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09544820902911366     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Chakrabarti, A. and Khadilkar, P., 2003.Ameasure forassessing product novelty.CD-ROM proceedingsof the international conference on engineering design ICED03, 19-21 August 2003, Stockholm. Glasgow, UK: The Design Society.
2. Cross, N., 2000. Engineering design methods. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
3. Avis, G.A., 1999. Creativity is forever. 4th ed. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
4. Deng, Y.-M., 2002. Function and behaviour representation in conceptual mechanical design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 16 (5), 343-362.
5. Eder, W.E., 1998. Design modelling - a design science approach (and why doesindustry not use it?). Journal of Engineering Design industry, 9 (4), 355-371.
6. Frost, R.B., 1999. Why does industry ignore design science? Journal of Engineering Design, 10 (4), 301-304.
7. Goldschmidt, G. and Smolkov, M., 2006.Variances in the impact of visual stimuli on design problem solving performance. Design Studies, 27 (5), 549-569.
8. Isaksen, S.G., 1987. Educational implications of creativity research: an updated rationale for creative learning. In: G. Kaufmann and K. Gronhaug, eds. Innovation: a cross-disciplinary perspective, Oslo, Norway: Norwegian University Press, 167-203.
9. Kirton, M.J., 1985 (1992, 1999). Kirton adaption-innovation inventory. Feedback booklet. Berkhamsted, UK: Occupational Research Centre.
10. Kirton, M.J., 1994. Adaptors and innovators. Styles of creativity and problem solving. London: Routledge.
11. Lindemann, U., 1999.Amodelofdesign processes of individual esigners. In: U. Lindemann, H.Birkhofer, H.Meerkamm, and S. Vajna, eds. International conference on engineering design ICED99, 24-26 August, Munich, Germany. Munich, Germany: Technical University of Munich.
12. López-Mesa, B., 2003. Selection and use of engineering design methods using creative problem solving principles. Licentiate thesis. Luleå University of Technology.
13. López-Mesa, B., 2004. The use and suitability of design methods in practice. Considerations of problem-solving characteristics and the context of design. Thesis (PhD). Luleå University of Technology, Sweden.
14. López-Mesa, B. and Thompson, G., 2006. On the significance of cognitive style and the selection of appropriate design methods. Journal of Engineering Design, 17 (4), 371-386.
15. López-Mesa, B. and Vidal, R., 2006. Novelty metrics in engineering design experiments. Proceedings of the international design conference - design 2006, 15-18 May 2006, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Glasgow, UK: The Design Society; Croatia: University of Zagreb, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture.
16. López-Mesa, B., et al., 2005. Creativity in people vs in methods. Proceedings of IX Congreso Internacional de Ingeniería de Proyectos, 22-24 June 2005, Málaga. Zaragoza, Spain: AEIPRO; Málaga, Spain: Universidad de Málaga.
17. Magyari-Beck, I., 1991. Dignity of creative studies [online]. Available from: http://buffalostate.edu/orgs/cbir/Readingroom/html/Magayari-Beck-91.html [Accessed 16 January 2003].
18. Parnes, S.J., ed., 1992. Source book for creative problem-solving. A fifty digest of proven innovation processes. NewYork: The Creative Education Foundation Press.
19. Purcell, A.T. and Gero, J.S., 1998. Drawings and the design process. Design Studies, 19 (4), 389-430.
20. Redelinghuys, C., 2000. Proposed criteria for the detection of invention in engineering design. Journal of Engineering Design, 11 (3), 265-282.
21. Rhodes, M., 1961. An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305-310.
22. Sarkar, P. and Chakrabarti, A., 2008. The effect of representation of triggers on design outcomes. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 22 (2), 101-117.
23. Schön, D.A., 1983. The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
24. Schön, D.A., 1987. Educating the reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
25. Schütze, M., Sachse, P., and Römer, A., 2003. Support value of sketching in the design process. Research in Engineering Design, 14 (2), 89-97.
26. Segers, N.M., de Vries, B., and Achten, H.H., 2005. Do word graphs stimulate design? Design Studies, 26 (6), 625-647.
27. Shah, J. and Vargas-Hernandez, N., 2003. Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Design Studies, 24 (2),111-134.
28. Valkenburg, R.C., 2000. The reflective practice in product design teams. Thesis (PhD). Delft University of Technology.
29. Van der Lugt, R., 2000. Developing a graphic tool for creative problem solving in design groups. Design Studies, 21 (5), 505-522.
30. VanGundy, A.B., 1983. 108 ways to get a bright idea. London: Prentice-Hall.
31. Vehar J., Miller B., and Firestien R., 1999. Creativity unbound. An introduction to creative problem solving. 2nd ed. Williamsville, NY: Innovation Systems Group.
32. Vidal, R., Mulet, E., and Gómez-Senent, E., 2004. Effectiveness of the means of expression in creative problem-solving in design groups. Journal of Engineering Design, 3 (3), 285-298.