Research Papers

The Impact of Team-Based Product Dissection on Design Novelty

[+] Author and Article Information
Christine A. Toh

Department of Mechanical
and Nuclear Engineering,
The Pennsylvania State University,
State College, PA 16802
 e-mail: christinetoh@psu.edu

Scarlett R. Miller

School of Engineering Design,
Technology and Professional Programs,
The Pennsylvania State University,
State College, PA 16802
e-mail: shm13@psu.edu

Gül E. Okudan Kremer

School of Engineering Design,
Technology and Professional Programs,
The Pennsylvania State University,
State College, PA 16802
e-mail: gek3@psu.edu

Contributed by the Design Theory and Methodology Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received February 16, 2013; final manuscript received November 20, 2013; published online January 31, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Janis Terpenny.

J. Mech. Des 136(4), 041004 (Jan 31, 2014) (10 pages) Paper No: MD-13-1086; doi: 10.1115/1.4026151 History: Received February 16, 2013; Revised November 20, 2013

Although design novelty is a critical area of research in engineering design, most research in this space has focused on understanding and developing formal idea generation methods instead of focusing on the impact of current design practices. This is problematic because formal techniques are often not adopted in industry due to the burdensome steps often included in these methods, which limit the practicality and adoption of these methods. This study seeks to understand the impact of product dissection, a design method widely utilized in academia and industry, on design novelty in order to produce recommendations for the use or alterations of this method for supporting novelty in design. To investigate the impact of dissection, a study was conducted with 76 engineering students who completed a team-based dissection of an electric toothbrush and then individually generated ideas. The relationships between involvement in the dissection activity, the product dissected, the novelty and quantity of the ideas developed were investigated. The results reveal that team members who were more involved in the dissection activity generated concepts that were more novel than those who did not. In addition, the type of the dissected product also had an influence on design novelty. Finally, a positive correlation between the number of ideas generated and the novelty of the design concepts was identified. The results from this study are used to provide recommendations for leveraging product dissection for enhancing novelty in engineering design education and practice.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Topics: Design , Teams
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Shah, J., and Vargas-Hernandez, N., 2003, “Metrics for Measuring Ideation Effectiveness,” Des. Stud., 24, pp. 111–124. [CrossRef]
Dylla, N., 1991, “Thinking Methods and Procedures in Mechanical Design,” Ph.D. thesis, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Osborn, A. F., 1963, Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Thinking, Scribeners and Sons, New York.
Kulkarni, C., Dow, S. P., and Klemmer, S. R., 2012, “Early and Repeated Exposure to Examples Improves Creative Work,” Cogn. Sci., Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Sapporo, Japan, pp. 635–640.
Altshuller, G. S., 1984, Creativity as an Exact Science: The Theory of the Solution of Inventive Problems, Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, Luxembourg.
Chrysikou, E., and Weisberg, W., 2005, “Following the Wrong Footsteps: Fixation Effects of Pictorial Examples in a Design Problem-Solving Task,” J. Exp. Psychol., 31(5), pp. 1134–1148.
Linsey, J., Tseng, I., Fu, K., Cagan, J., Wood, K., and Schunn, C., 2010, “A Study of Design Fixation, its Mitigation and Perception in Engineering Design Faculty,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 132, pp. 1–12.
Lubart, T., 2005, “How Can Computers be Partners in the Creative Process: Classification and Commentary on the Special Issue,” Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud., 63(4–5), pp. 365–369. [CrossRef]
Laakso, M. L., and Liikkanen, L. A., 2012, “Dubious Role of Formal Creativity Techniques in Professional Design,” International Conference on Design Creativity, Glasgow, UK.
Youmans, R. J., 2011, “Design Fixation in the Wild: How Physical Interactions and Collaboration Affect Fixation Phenomena,” J. Creat. Behav., 45, pp. 101–107. [CrossRef]
Lamancusa, J., and Gardner, J., 1999, “Product Dissection in Academia: Teaching Engineering the Way we Learned it,” International Conference on Engineering Education, Ostrava Czech Republic.
Bessemer, S. P., 1998, “Creative Product Analysis Matrix: Testing the Model Structure and a Comparison Among Products—Three Novel Chairs,” Creativity Res. J., 11(4), pp. 333–346. [CrossRef]
Guilford, J. P., 1967, The Nature of Human Intelligence, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Mackinnon, D. W., 1977, “The Nature and Nurture of the Creative Tallent,” Am. Psychol., 17, pp. 484–495. [CrossRef]
Luchins, A. S., and Luchins, E. H., 1959, Rigidity of Behavior: A Variational Approach to the Effect of Einstellung, University of Oregon, Eugene.
Parnes, S. J., Noller, R. B., and Biondi, A. M., 1977, Guide to Creative Action, Scribner's, New York.
De Dreu, C. K. W., and West, M. A., 2001, “Minority Dissent and Team Innovation: The Importance of Participation in Decision Making,” J. Appl. Psychol., 86(6), pp. 1191–1201. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Forster, J., 2009, “Cognifitve Consequences of Novelty and Familiarity: How Mere Exposure Influences Level of Construal,” J. Exp. Soc. Psychol., 45(2), pp. 444–447. [CrossRef]
Garrett, R. M., 1987, “Issues in Science Education: Problem-Solving, Creativity, and Originality,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., 9(2), pp. 125–137. [CrossRef]
Silver, E. A., 1997, “Fostering Creativity Through Instruction Rich in Mathematical Problem Solving and Problem Posing,” Int. J. Math. Educ., 29(3), pp. 75–80. [CrossRef]
Berglund, H., and Wennberg, K., 2006, “Creativity Among Entrepreneurship Students: Comparing Engineering and Business Education,” Int. J. Contin. Eng. Educ. Lifelong Learn., 16(5), pp. 366–379. [CrossRef]
Smith, R. E., and Yang, Y., 2009, “Toward a General Theory of Creativity in Advertising: Examining the Role of Divergence,” Mark. Theory, 4(31), pp. 31–58. [CrossRef]
Jackson, P., and Messick, S., 1965, “The Person, the Product, and the Response: Conceptual Problems in the Assessment of Creativity,” J. Pers., 33, pp. 309–329. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Thompson, G., and Lordan, M., 1999, “A Review of Creativity Principles Applied to Engineering Design,” J. Process Mech. Eng., 213, pp. 17–31. [CrossRef]
Yang, M. C., 2009, “Observations on Concept Generation and Sketching in Engineering Design,” Res. Eng. Des., 20(1), pp. 1–11. [CrossRef]
Nelson, B., and Yen, J., 2009, “Refined Metrics for Measuring Ideation Effectiveness,” Des. Stud., 30, pp. 737–743. [CrossRef]
Torrance, E., 1964, “Role of Evaluation in Creative Thinking,” University of Minnesota, Technical Report. Bureau of Educational Research, University of Minnesota, MN.
Torrance, E., 1964, Guiding Creative Talent, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Sarkar, P., and Chakrabarti, A., 2011, “Assessing Design Creativity,” Des. Stud., 32, pp. 348–383. [CrossRef]
Weisberg, R. W., 1993, From Creativity-Beyond the Myth of Genius, WH Freeman and Company, New York.
Smith, G. J., 1998, “Idea-Generation Technique: A Formulary of Active Ingredients,” J. Creat. Behav., 32, pp. 107–133. [CrossRef]
Herring, S. R., Jones, B. R., and Bailey, B. P., 2009, “Idea Generation Techniques Among Creative Professionals,” Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, Big Island, HI.
Chulvi, V., Gonzalez-Cruz, M. C., Mulet, E., and Aguilar-Zambrano, J., 2012, “Influence of Type of Idea-Generation Method on the Creativity of Solutions,” Res. Eng. Des., 24(1), pp. 33–41. [CrossRef]
Eberle, B., 1996, Scamper: Games for Imagination Development, Prufrock Press, Waco, TX.
Yilmaz, S., Seifert, C. M., and Gonzalez, R., 2012, “Design Heuristics: Cognitive Strategies for Creativity in Idea Generation,” Design Computing Cognition, DCC’12, College Station, TX.
Shah, J. J., Vargas-Hernandez, N., Summers, J. D., and Kulkarni, S., 2001, “Collaborative Sketching (C-Sketch)-an Idea Generation Techniques for Engineering Design,” J. Creat. Behav., 35(3), pp. 168–198. [CrossRef]
Osborn, A., 1957, Applied Imagination, Scribner, New York, NY.
Litchfield, R. C., Fan, J., and Brown, V. R., 2011, “Directing Idea Generation Using Brainstorming With Specific Novelty Goals,” Motiv. Emotion, 35(2), pp. 135–143. [CrossRef]
Cheong, H., Chiu, I., Shu, L. H., Stone, R. B., and Mcadams, D. A., 2011, “Biologically Meaningful Keywords for Functional Terms of the Functional Basis,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 133(2), p. 021007. [CrossRef]
Linsey, J. S., Wood, K. L., and Markman, A. B., 2012, “Modality and Representation in Analogy,” Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf., 22, pp. 85–100.
Lee, J., and Eune, J., 2009, Design Ideation Method Adaptation for Creative Thinking in the Technology Industry, International Association of Societies of Design Research, Coex, Seoul, Korea.
Simonton, D., 2003, “Scientific Creatibity as Constrained Stochastic Behavior: The Integration of Product, Person, and Process Perspectives,” Psychol. Bull., 129(4), pp. 474–494. [CrossRef]
Linsey, J. S., Clauss, E. F., Kurtoglu, T., Murphy, J. T., Wood, K. L., and Markman, A. B., 2011, “An Experimental Study of Group Idea Generation Techniques: Understanding the Roles of Idea Representation and Viewing Methods,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 133(3), p. 031008. [CrossRef]
Brereton, M., 1998, “The Role of Hardware in Learning Engineering Fundamentals: An Empirical Study of Engineering Design and Disection Activity,” Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.
Viswanathan, V. K., and Linsey, J. S., 2012, “Physical Models and Design Thinking: A Study of Functionality, Novelty, and Variety of Ideas,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 134(9), p. 091004. [CrossRef]
Sheppard, S. D., and Jenison, R., 1997, “Examples of Freshman Design Education,” Int. J. Eng. Educ., 13(4), pp. 248–261.
Borrego, M., Froyd, J. E., and Hall, T. S., 2010, “Diffusion of Engineering Education Innovations: A Survey of Awareness and Adoption Rates in U.S. Engineering Departments,” J. Eng. Educ., 99(3), pp. 185–207. [CrossRef]
Wood, K., Jensen, D., Bezdek, J., and Otto, K., 2001, “Reverse Engineering and Redesign: Courses to Incrementally and Systematically Teach Design,” J. Eng. Educ., 90(3), pp. 363–374. [CrossRef]
Grantham, K., Okudan, G., Simpson, T., and Ashour, O., 2012, “A Study on Situated Cognition: Product Dissection's Effect on Redesign Activities,” ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conference, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Odesma, O. S., Sears, D. A., and Evangelou, D., 2011, “The Motivational and Transfer Potential of Disassenble/Analyze/Assemble Activities,” J. Eng. Educ., 100(4), pp. 741–759. [CrossRef]
Linsey, J. S., Tseng, I., Fu, K., Cagan, J., Wood, K. L., and Schunn, C., 2010, “A Study of Design Fixation, its Mitigation and Perception in Engineering Design Faculty,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 132(4), p. 041003. [CrossRef]
Viswanathan, V., and Linsey, J. S., 2012, “Physical Examples in Engineering Idea Generation: an Experimental Investigation,” International Conference on Design Creativity, Glasgow, UK.
Purcell, A. R., Williams, P., Gero, J. S., and Colbron, 1993, “Fixation Effects: Do They Exist in Design Problem Solving?,” Environ. Plan. B: Plan. Des., 20(3), pp. 333–345. [CrossRef]
Pertulla, M., and Sipila, P., 2007, “The Idea Exposure Paradigm in Design Idea Generation,” J. Eng. Des., 18(1), pp. 93–102. [CrossRef]
Toh, C., Miller, S. R., and OkudanKremer, G. E., “The Role of Personality and Team-Based Product Dissection on Fixation Effects,” Adv. Eng. Educ.3(4), pp. 1–23.
Jansson, D., and Smith, S., 1991, “Design Fixation,” Des. Stud., 12(1), pp. 3–11. [CrossRef]
Nelson, B., Wilson, J., Rosen, D., and Yen, J., 2009, “Refined Metrics for Measuring Ideation Effectiveness,” Des. Stud., 30, pp. 737–743. [CrossRef]
Srivathsavai, R., Genco, N., Holtta-Otto, K., and Seepersad, C., 2010, “Study of Existing Metrics Used in Measurement of Ideation Effectiveness,” ASME 2010 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information Engineering Conference, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Toh, C., Miller, S., and Okudan Kremer, G., 2012, “The Impact of Product Dissection Activities on the Novelty of Design Outcomes,” ASME 2012 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Design Theory and Methodology, Chicago, IL.
Toh, C., Miller, S., and Okudan Kremer, G., 2012, “Mitigating Design Fixation Effects in Engineering Design through Product Dissection Activities,” Design Computing and Cognition, DCC’12, College Station, TX.
Shah, J., Kulkarni, S., and Vargas-Hernandez, N., 2000, “Evaluation of Idea Generation Methods for Conceptual Design: Effectiveness Metrics and Design of Experiments,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 122(4), pp. 377–384. [CrossRef]
Heasman, P. A., Stacey, F., Heasman, L., Sellers, P., Macgregor, I. D. M., and Kelly, P. J., 1999, “A Comparative Study of the Philips Hp 735, Braun/Oral B D7 and the Oral B 35 Advantage Toothbrushes,” J. Clin. Periodontol., 26, pp. 85–90. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Wood, K. J., Jensen, D., Bezdek, J., Otto, K. N., 2001, “Reverse Engineering and Redesign: Courses to Incrementally and Systematically Teach Design,” J. Eng. Educ., 90(3), pp. 363–374. [CrossRef]
Aziz, E.-S., and Chasspis, C., 2008, “Introduction to the ME Curriculum Through Product Engineering Case Studies,” ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Eduation Conference, Saratoga Springs, NY.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Electric toothbrushes used for the design project. Left: Oral-B cross action power and right: Oral-B advance power 400.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Sequential concepts generated for the body design by participant 45

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

(Top) Participant 25's brush head design that uses writing to supplement the sketch in order to communicate the design idea. (Bottom) Example question with rating scale used to identify the features the idea focused on. Raters answered the question with option 4 (completely disagree).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Examples of highly novel ideas for the body design category generated by participant 45 (left) and energy mechanism category generated by participant 12 (right)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

The means and standard deviations of participant novelty for low and high levels of exposure within team for the body design and energy mechanism category




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In