This paper presents an experimental study that was conducted to compare the results obtained from using different design methods (brainstorming (BR), functional analysis (FA), and SCAMPER) in design processes. The objectives of this work are twofold. The first was to determine whether there are any differences in the length of time devoted to the different types of activities that are carried out in the design process, depending on the method that is employed; in other words, whether the design methods that are used make a difference in the profile of time spent across the design activities. The second objective was to analyze whether there is any kind of relationship between the time spent on design process activities and the degree of creativity in the solutions that are obtained. Creativity evaluation has been done by means of the degree of novelty and the level of resolution of the designed solutions using creative product semantic scale (CPSS) questionnaire. The results show that there are significant differences between the amounts of time devoted to activities related to understanding the problem and the typology of the design method, intuitive or logical, that are used. While the amount of time spent on analyzing the problem is very small in intuitive methods, such as brainstorming and SCAMPER (around 8–9% of the time), with logical methods like functional analysis practically half the time is devoted to analyzing the problem. Also, it has been found that the amount of time spent in each design phase has an influence on the results in terms of creativity, but results are not enough strong to define in which measure are they affected. This paper offers new data and results on the distinct benefits to be obtained from applying design methods.

References

References
1.
Cross
,
N.
,
Christiaans
,
H.
, and
Dorst
,
K.
, 1996,
Analysing Design Activity
,
John Wiley & Sons
,
Delft University of Technology, The Neederlands
.
2.
Roozenburg
,
N.
, and
Eekels
,
J.
, 1995,
Product Design: Fundamentals and Methods
,
John Wiley & Sons
,
New York
.
3.
Jones
,
J. C.
, 1970,
Design Methods: Seeds of Human Futures
,
Wiley-Interscience
,
New York
.
4.
Van Gundy
,
A. B.
, 1988,
Techniques of Structured Problem Solving
,
Van Nostrand Reinhold
,
New York
.
5.
Higgins
,
J. M.
, 1994, “
101 Creative Problem Solving Techniques
,”
The Handbook of New Ideas for Business
,
New Management Publishing Company
,
Florida
.
6.
Shah
,
J.
,
Vargas-Hernandez
,
N.
, and
Smith
,
S.
, 2003, “
Metrics for Measuring Ideation Effectiveness
,”
Des. Stud.
,
24
(
2
), pp.
111
134
.
7.
Ritchey
,
T.
, 1998, “
Fritz Zwicky, Morphologie and Policy Analysis
,” 16th EURO Conference on Operational Analysis, Brussels.
8.
Thompson
,
G.
, and
Lordan
,
M.
, 1999, “
A Review of Creativity Principles Applied to Engineering Design
,” Proceedings of the I Mech. E-Part Journal of Process Mechanical Engineering.
9.
Eberle
,
B.
, 1996,
Scamper: Games for Imagination Development
,
Prufrock Press
,
Waco, TEX
.
10.
Rohrbach
,
B.
, 1969, “
Creative by Rules—Method 635, A New Technique for Solving Problems
,”
Absatzwirtschaft
,
12
, pp.
73
75
.
11.
Buzan
,
T.
, and
Buzan
,
B.
, 1999,
El libro de los mapas mentales: Cómo utilizar al máximo las capacidades de la mente
,
Ediciones Urano
,
Logroño
.
12.
Gordon
,
W. J. J.
, 1961,
Synectics: The Development of Creative Capacity
,
Harper and Row
,
New York
.
13.
Altshuller
,
G.
, 1984,
Creativity as an Exact Science: The Theory of the Solution of Inventive Problems
,
Gordon and Breach Science Publishers
,
Luxembourg
.
14.
Horowitz
,
R.
, and
Maimon
,
O.
, 1997, “
Creative Design Methodology and the SIT Method
,” Proceedings of DETC’97 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, Sept. 14–17, Sacramento, CA.
15.
Osborn
,
A.
, 1953,
Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Thinking
,
Charles Scribner’s Sons
,
New York
.
16.
Mullen
,
B.
,
Johnson
,
C.
, and
Salas
,
E.
, 1991, “
Productivity Loss in Brainstorming Groups: A Meta-Analytic Integration
,”
Basic Appl. Soc. Psicol.
,
12
(
1
), pp.
3
23
.
17.
Paulus
,
P. B.
, and
Yang
,
H. C.
, 2000, “
Idea Generation in Groups: A Basis for Creativity in Organizations
,”
Org. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.
,
82
, pp.
76
87
.
18.
Vidal
,
R.
,
Mulet
,
E.
, and
Gómez-Senent
,
E.
, 2004, “
Effectiveness of the Means of Expression in Creative Problem-Solving in Desing Groups
,”
J. Eng. Des.
,
3
(
15
), pp.
285
298
.
19.
Van der Lugt
,
R.
, 2000, “
Developing a Graphic Tool for Creative Problem Solving in Design Groups
,”
Des. Stud.
,
21
, pp.
506
522
.
20.
Yang
,
M. C.
, 2008, “
Observations on Concept Generation and Sketching in Engineering Design
,”
Res. Eng. Des.
,
20
(
1
), pp.
1
11
.
21.
López-Mesa
,
M. B.
,
Mulet
,
E.
,
Vidal
,
R.
, and
Thompson
,
G.
, 2011, “
Effects of Additional Stimuli on Idea-Finding in Design Teams
,”
J. Eng. Des.
,
1
(
22
), pp.
31
54
.
22.
Shah
,
J. J.
, 1998, “
Experimental Investigation of Progressive Idea Generation Techniques in Engineering Design
,” Proceedings of 1998 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, Atlanta GA.
23.
Linsey
,
J. S.
,
Clauss
,
E. F.
,
Kurtoglu
,
T.
,
Murphy
,
J. T.
, and
Wood
,
K. L.
, 2011, “
An Experimental Study of Group Idea Generation Techniques: Understanding the Roles of Idea Representation and Viewing Methods
,”
J. Mech. Des.
,
133
(
3
), p.
031008
.
24.
Birkhofer
,
H.
,
Kloberdanz
,
H.
,
Sauer
,
T.
, and
Berger
,
B.
, 2002, “
Why Methods Don’t Work and How to Get Them Work
,” Third International Seminar and Workshop, EDIProD’2002. Zielona Góra-Lagów, Poland.
25.
Visser
,
W.
, 2009, “
Design: One, But in Different Forms
,”
Des. Stud.
,
30
(
3
), pp.
187
223
.
26.
Atman
,
C. J.
,
Cardella
,
M. E.
,
Turns
,
J.
, and
Adams
,
R.
, 2004, “
Comparing Freshman and Senior Engineering Design Processes: An In-Depth Follow-Up Study
,”
Des. Stud.
,
26
(
4
), pp.
325
357
.
27.
Pahl
,
G.
, and
Beitz
,
W.
, 1995, “
Engineering Design
,”
A Systematic Approach
,
Springer
,
New York
.
28.
Ulrich
,
K. T.
, and
Eppinger
,
S. D.
, 1995,
Product Design and Development
,
McGraw-Hill International Editions
,
New York
.
29.
Ullman
,
D.
, 1997,
The Mechanical Design Process
,
McGraw-Hill
,
New York
.
30.
Jones
,
J.
, 1970,
Design Methods: Seeds of Human Futures
,
Wiley-Interscience
,
New York
.
31.
Gero
,
J. S.
, and
Mc Neill
,
T. M.
, 1998, “
An Approach to the Analysis of Design Protocols
,”
Des. Stud.
,
19
(
1
), pp.
21
61
.
32.
Schön
,
D.
, 1983,
The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action
,
Temple Smith
,
London
.
33.
Valkenburg
,
R. C.
, 2000, “
The Reflective Practice in Product Design Teams
,” Ph.D. thesis, Delft University of Technology, The Neederlands.
34.
Takeda
,
H.
,
Yoshioka
,
M.
,
Tomiyama
,
T.
, and
Shimomura
,
Y.
, 1996, “
Analysis of Design Protocol by Functional Evolution Process Model
,” Analysing Design Activity,
Cross
,
N.
,
Christiaans
,
H.
, and
Dorst
,
K.
, eds., pp
187
209
.
35.
Chakrabarti
,
A.
, 2003, “
Towards a Measure for Assessing Creative Influences of a Creativity Technique
,” International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED 03, Stockholm, Sweden.
36.
Nidamarthi
,
S.
,
Chakrabarti
,
A.
, and
Bligh
,
T. P.
, 1997, “
The Significance of Co-Evolving Requirements and Solutions in the Design Process
,” Proceedings of the International Conference in Engineering Design, Tampere, Finland.
37.
Chulvi
,
V.
,
Mulet
,
E.
, and
González-Cruz
,
M. C.
, 2012, “
Measure of Product Creativity. Metrics and Objectivity
,”
DYNA
,
87
(
1
), pp.
80
89
. Available at: http://www.revistadyna.com
38.
Besemer
,
S. P.
, and
O’Quin
,
K.
, 1989, “
The Development, Reliability and Validity of the Revised Creative Product Semantic Scale
,”
Creativity Res. J.
,
2
, pp.
268
279
.
39.
Michael
,
K. Y.
, 2000, “
A Comparison of Students’ Product Creativity Using a Computer Simulation Activity Versus a Hands-On Activity in Technology Education
,” Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia.
40.
Michael
,
K. Y.
, 2001, “
The Effect of a Computer Simulation Activity Versus a Hands-On Activity on Product Creativity in Technology Education
,”
J. Technol. Educ.
,
13
(
1
), pp.
31
43
. Available at: http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ636466&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ636466http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ636466&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ636466
41.
Srinivas
N.
,
Chakrabarti
,
A.
, and
Thomas
P. B.
, 2001, “
Improving Requirement Satisfaction Ability of the Designer
,” Proceedings of the International Conference in Engineering Design, Glasgow.
42.
Cropley
,
A.
, and
Cropley
,
D.
, 2009,
Fostering Creativity: A Diagnostic Approach for Higher Education and Organisations,”
Hampton Press, Inc
.
43.
Freeman
,
D. H.
, 1987,
Applied Categorical Data Analysis
,
Marcel Dekker, Inc.
,
New York
.
You do not currently have access to this content.