On the Benefits and Pitfalls of Analogies for Innovative Design: Ideation Performance Based on Analogical Distance, Commonness, and Modality of ExamplesSource: Journal of Mechanical Design:;2011:;volume( 133 ):;issue: 008::page 81004Author:Joel Chan
,
Katherine Fu
,
Christian Schunn
,
Jonathan Cagan
,
Kristin Wood
,
Kenneth Kotovsky
DOI: 10.1115/1.4004396Publisher: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Abstract: 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.
keyword(s): Design AND Project tasks ,
|
Collections
Show full item record
| contributor author | Joel Chan | |
| contributor author | Katherine Fu | |
| contributor author | Christian Schunn | |
| contributor author | Jonathan Cagan | |
| contributor author | Kristin Wood | |
| contributor author | Kenneth Kotovsky | |
| date accessioned | 2017-05-09T00:45:46Z | |
| date available | 2017-05-09T00:45:46Z | |
| date copyright | August, 2011 | |
| date issued | 2011 | |
| identifier issn | 1050-0472 | |
| identifier other | JMDEDB-27951#081004_1.pdf | |
| identifier uri | http://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/147015 | |
| description abstract | 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. | |
| publisher | The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) | |
| title | On the Benefits and Pitfalls of Analogies for Innovative Design: Ideation Performance Based on Analogical Distance, Commonness, and Modality of Examples | |
| type | Journal Paper | |
| journal volume | 133 | |
| journal issue | 8 | |
| journal title | Journal of Mechanical Design | |
| identifier doi | 10.1115/1.4004396 | |
| journal fristpage | 81004 | |
| identifier eissn | 1528-9001 | |
| keywords | Design AND Project tasks | |
| tree | Journal of Mechanical Design:;2011:;volume( 133 ):;issue: 008 | |
| contenttype | Fulltext |