Drawing inspiration from examples by analogy can be a powerful tool for innovative design during conceptual ideation but also carries the risk of negative design outcomes (e.g., design fixation), depending on key properties of examples. Understanding these properties is critical for effectively harnessing the power of analogy. The current research explores how variations in analogical distance, commonness, and representation modality influence the effects of examples on conceptual ideation. Senior-level engineering students generated solution concepts for an engineering design problem with or without provided examples drawn from the U.S. Patent database. Examples were crossed by analogical distance (near-field vs. far-field), commonness (more vs. less-common), and modality (picture vs. text). A control group that received no examples was included for comparison. Effects were examined on a mixture of ideation process and product variables. Our results show positive effects of far-field and less-common examples on novelty and variability in quality of solution concepts. These effects are not modulated by modality. However, detailed analyses of process variables suggest divergent inspiration pathways for far-field vs. less-common examples. Additionally, the combination of far-field, less-common examples resulted in more novel concepts than in the control group. These findings suggest guidelines for the effective design and implementation of design-by-analogy methods, particularly a focus on far-field, less-common examples during the ideation process.
Issue Section:
Research Papers
Keywords:
design engineering,
engineering education,
innovation management,
design cognition,
design methods,
conceptual design,
innovation,
analogy
Topics:
Design
References
1.
Pisano
, G.
, and Shih
, W.
, 2009, “Restoring American Competitiveness
,” Harv. Bus. Rev.
, 87
, pp. 114
–125
.2.
National Academy of Engineering
, 2005, Engineering Research and America’s, Future: Meeting the Challenges of a Global Economy
, National Academies Press
, Washington, DC
.3.
Vogel
, C. M.
, Cagan
, J.
, and Boatwright
, P.
, 2005, The Design of Things to Come
, Wharton School Pub
, Upper Saddle River, NJ
.4.
Terwiesch
, C.
, and Ulrich
, K. T.
, 2009, Innovation Tournaments
, Harvard Business School Pub
.5.
Casakin
, H.
, and Goldschmidt
, G.
, 1999, “Expertise and the use of visual analogy: Implications for design education
,” Des. Stud.
, 20
(2
), pp. 153
–175
.6.
7.
Christensen
, B. T.
, and Schunn
, C. D.
, 2007, “The Relationship of Analogical Distance to Analogical Function and Pre-Inventive Structure: The Case of Engineering Design.
Mem. Cognit.
, 35
(1
), pp. 29
–38
.8.
Linsey
, J.
, Murphy
, J.
, Laux
, J.
, Markman
, A.
, and Wood
, K. L.
, 2009, “Supporting Innovation by Promoting Analogical Reasoning
,” Tools of Innovation
, Oxford University Press
, New York, NY
.9.
Gentner
, D.
, 1983, “Structure-Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy
,” Cogn. Sci.
, 7
, pp. 155
–170
.10.
Linsey
, J.
, Murphy
, J.
, Markman
, A.
, Wood
, K. L.
, and Kortoglu
, T.
, 2006, “Representing Analogies: Increasing the Probability of Innovation
,” ASME International Design Theory and Method Conference
, Philadelphia, PA
.11.
Linsey
, J.
, Wood
, K. L.
, and Markman
, A.
, 2008, “Modality and Representation in Analogy
,” Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf. (Special Issue on Multi-modal Design)
, 22
(2
), pp. 85
–100
.12.
Gordon
, W. J. J.
, 1961, Synectics: The Development of Creative Capacity
, Harper and Brothers
, New York
.13.
French
, M.
, 1988, Invention and Evolution: Design in Nature and Engineering
, Cambridge University Press
, Cambridge, UK
.14.
Hacco
, E.
, and Shu
, L. H.
, 2002, “Biomimetic Concept Generation Applied to Design for Remanufacture
,” 2002 ASME Design Engineering Technology Conference and Company and Information in Engineering Conference
, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
.15.
McAdams
, D. A.
, and Wood
, K. L.
, 2000, “Quantitative Measures for Design by Analogy
,” , DETC’ 00, 2000 ASME Design Engineering Technology Conference
Baltimore, Maryland.16.
Hirtz
, J.
, Stone
, R. B.
, and McAdams
, D. A.
, 2002, “A Functional Basis for Engineering Design: Reconciling and Evolving Previous Efforts
,” Res. Eng. Des.
, 13
, pp. 65
–82
.17.
Gentner
, D.
, and Markman
, A. B.
, 1997, “Structure Mapping in Analogy and Similarity
,” Am. Psychol.
, 52
, pp. 45
–56
.18.
Dahl
, D. W.
, and Moreau
, P.
, 2002, “The Influence and Value of Analogical Tthinking During New Product Ideation
,” J. Mark. Res.
, 39
(1
), pp. 47
–60
.19.
Wilson
, J. O.
, Rosen
, D.
, Nelson
, B. A.
, and Yen
, J.
, 2010, “The Effects of Biological Examples in Idea Generation
,” Des. Stud.
, 31
, pp. 169
–186
.20.
Gick
, M. L.
, and Holyoak
, K. J.
, 1980, “Analogical Problem Solving
,” Cogn. Psychol.
, 12
(3
), pp. 306
–355
.21.
Dunbar
, K.
, 1997, “How Scientists Think: On-Line Creativity and Conceptual Change in Science
,” Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes
, T. B.
Ward
, S. M.
Smith
, and J.
Vaid
, ed., Amer. Psych. Assoc.
, Washington, DC
, pp. 461
–493
.22.
Weisberg
, R. W.
, 2009, “On “Out-of-the-Box,” Thinking in Creativity
,” Tools for Innovation
A. B.
Markman
and K. L.
Wood
, eds., Oxford University Press
, New York
.23.
Purcell
, A. T.
, and Gero
, J. S.
1992, “Effects of Examples on the Results of a Design Activity
,” Knowledge-Based Syst.
, 5
(1
), pp. 82
–91
.24.
Duncker
, K.
, 1945, On Problem Solving
, Amer. Psych. Assoc.
Washington, DC
.25.
Adamson
, R. E.
, 1952, “Functional Fixedness as Related to Problem Solving: A Repetition of Three Experiments
,” J. Exp. Psychol.
, 44
(4
), pp. 288
–291
.26.
Maier
, N. R. F.
, 1931, “Reasoning in Humans. II. The Solution of a Problem and Its Appearance in Consciousness
,” J. Comp. Psychol.
, 12
, pp. 181
–194
.27.
Chase
, W. G.
, and Simon
, H. A.
, 1973, “The Mind’s Eye in Chess
,” Visual Information Processing
, W. G.
Chase
, ed., Academic Press
, New York
.28.
Chi
, M. T. H.
, Feltovich
, P. J.
, and Glaser
, R.
, 1981, “Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices
,” Cogn. Sci.
, 5
, pp. 121
–152
.29.
Chi
, M. T. H.
, and Koeske
, R. D.
, 1983, “Network Representation of a Child’s Dinosaur Knowledge
,” Dev. Psychol.
, 19
(1
), pp. 29
–39
.30.
Newell
, A.
, 1990, Unified Theories of Cognition
, Harvard University Press
, Cambridge, MA
.31.
Anderson
, J. R.
, and Schunn
, C. D.
, 2000, “Implications of the ACT-R Learning Theory: No Magic Bullets
,” Advances in Instructional Psychology
, R.
Glaser
, ed., Lawrence Erlbaum
, Mahwah, NJ
.32.
Kaplan
, C. A.
, and Simon
, H. A.
, 1990, “In Search of Insight
,” Cogn. Psychol.
, 22
, pp. 374
–419
.33.
Ohlsson
, S.
, 1992, “Information-Processing Explanations of Insight and Related Phenomena
,” Advances in the Psychology of Thinking
, Vol. 1
, M. T.
Keane
and K. J.
Gilhooly
, eds., Harvester Wheatsheaf
, Hertfordshire, UK
.34.
Knoblich
, G.
, Ohlsson
, S.
, Haider
, H.
, and Rhenius
, D.
, 1999, “Constraint Relaxation and Chunk Decomposition in Insight Problem Solving
,” J. Exp. Psych. Learn. Mem. Cogn.
, 25
(6
), pp. 1534
–1555
.35.
McKoy
, F. L.
, Vargas-Hernandez
, N.
, Summers
, J. D.
, and Shah
, J. J.
, 2001, “Influence of Design Representation on Effectiveness of Idea Generation
,” DETC ‘01: ASME 2001 Des. Eng. Tech. Conf. and Comp. and Inf. In Eng. Conf.
, Pittsburgh, PA
.36.
Green
, M.
, Dutson
, A.
, Wood
, K. L.
, Stone
, R.
, and McAdams
, D.
, 2002, “Integrating Service-Oriented Design Projects in the Engineering Curriculum
,” Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition
.37.
Green
, M.
, and Wood
, K. L.
, 2004, “Service-Learning Approaches to International Humanitarian Design Projects: Assessment of Spiritual Impact
,” Proceedings of the 2004 Christian Engineering Education Conference
.38.
White
, C.
, and Wood
, K. L.
, 2010, “Influences and Interests in Humanitarian Engineering
,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference, Lexington, KY, June 2010, AC
2010-652
; Proceedings of the Global Colloquium on Engineering Education, Singapore, October 2010.39.
Moss
, J.
, Kotovsky
, K.
, and Cagan
, J.
, 2007, “The Influence of Open Goals on the Acquisition of Problem Relevant Information
,” J. Exp. Psych. Learn. Mem. Cogn.
33
(5
), pp. 876
–891
.40.
Tseng
, I.
, Moss
, J.
, Cagan
, J.
, and Kotovsky
, K.
, 2008, “The Role of Timing and Analogical Similarity in the Stimulation of Idea Generation in Design
,” Des. Stud.
, 29
, pp. 203
–221
.41.
Markman
, A. B.
, and Wood
, K. L.
, eds., 2009, Tools for Innovation: The Science Behind Practical Methods That Drive New Ideas
, Oxford University Press
, New York
.42.
Boden
, M. A.
, 2004, The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms
, 2nd ed., Routledge
, London
.43.
Shah
, J. J.
, Vargas-Hernandez
, N.
, and Smith
, S. M.
, 2003, “Metrics for Measuring Ideation Effectiveness
,” Des. Stud.
, 24
, pp. 111
–134
.44.
Girotra
, K.
, Terwiesch
, C.
, and Ulrich
, K. T.
, 2010, “Idea Generation and the Quality of the Best Idea
,” Manage. Sci.
, 56
(4
), pp. 591
–605
.45.
Blanchette
, I.
, and Dunbar
, K.
, 2000, “How Analogies are Generated: The Roles of Structural and Superficial Similarity
,” Mem. Cognit.
, 28
(1
), pp. 108
–124
.46.
Ishibashi
, K.
, and Okada
, T.
, 2006, “Exploring the Effect of Copying Incomprehensible Exemplars on Creative Drawings
,” R.
Sun
, ed., Proceedings 28th Ann. Conf. Cog. Sci. Society
. Vancouver, Canada
.47.
Novick
, L. R.
, 1988, “Analogical Transfer, Problem Similarity, and Expertise
,” J. Exp. Psych. Learn. Mem. Cogn.
, 14
(3
), pp. 510
–520
.48.
Chakrabarti
, A.
, Sarkar
, P.
, Leelavathamma
, B.
, and Nataraju
, B. S.
, 2005, “A Functional Representation for Biomimetic and Artificial Inspiration of New Ideas
,” AIEDAM
, 19
, pp. 113
–132
.49.
Forbus
, K. D.
, Gentner
, D.
, and Law
, K.
, 1994, “MAC/FAC: A Model of Similarity-Based Retrieval
,” Cogn. Sci.
, 19
, pp. 141
–205
.Copyright © 2011
by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
You do not currently have access to this content.
