Research Papers: Design Theory and Methodology

But Is It Creative? Delineating the Impact of Expertise and Concept Ratings on Creative Concept Selection

[+] Author and Article Information
Christopher A. Gosnell

The Pennsylvania State University,
112 Leonhard Building,
University Park, PA 16802
e-mail: cag5266@psu.edu

Scarlett R. Miller

The Pennsylvania State University,
213-P Hammond Building,
University Park, PA 16802-1401
e-mail: scarlettmiller@psu.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Design Theory and Methodology Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received January 7, 2015; final manuscript received September 24, 2015; published online December 4, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Kristina Shea.

J. Mech. Des 138(2), 021101 (Dec 04, 2015) (11 pages) Paper No: MD-15-1015; doi: 10.1115/1.4031904 History: Received January 07, 2015; Revised September 24, 2015

While creativity is often stressed in the conceptual phases of design, it is rarely considered during the concept selection process. Before effective methods can be developed to aid in creative concept section, however, differences in the perceptions of creativity between expert and novice designers and the influence of creativity evaluation methods on the process must be considered. Therefore, this paper was developed to address these questions by studying 11 expert and 11 novice designers. Specifically the study was developed to understand if experts' and novices' perception of a concepts creativity aligned, to introduce and compare the utility of our tool for assessing semantic creativity (TASC) to existing creativity evaluation methods, and to identify if our TASC method could be used as a proxy for expert evaluators. Our findings reveal that experts and novices generally had similar perceptions of a concept's creativity and that the TASC method was tapping into similar constructs of human perceptions of concept creativity. The results of this study contribute to our understanding of the factors that influence the selection or filtering of creative ideas after idea generation and provide a framework for research in this field.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Topics: Creativity , Design
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Summary comparisons of design evaluations from “toothbrush” design problem

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

The inter-rater reliability (Kappa) for the idea rating methods used in the current study based on the 22 raters

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

A summary of the Cohen's weighted Kappa between novice rater's perception, novice TASC and SVS scores of all 27 designs

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

A summary of the Cohen's weighted Kappa analysis between expert rater's perception, expert TASC and SVS scores of all 27 designs. ** Significant at p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

A summary of the Cohen's weighted Kappa calculations between expert perception and both novice TASC and novice perception scores by design problem




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