0
Research Papers: Design Theory and Methodology

An Empirical Study on the Impact of Design Brief Information on the Creativity of Design Outcomes With Consideration of Gender and Gender Diversity

[+] Author and Article Information
Georgios Koronis

SUTD-MIT International Design Centre,
Singapore University of Technology and Design,
Singapore
e-mail: georgios_koronis@sutd.edu.sg

Pei Zhi Chia

SUTD-MIT International Design Centre,
Singapore University of Technology and Design,
Singapore
e-mail: peizhi_chia@sutd.edu.sg

Jacob Kang Kai Siang

SUTD-MIT International Design Centre,
Singapore University of Technology and Design,
Singapore
e-mail: jacob_kang@mymail.sutd.edu.sg

Arlindo Silva

Engineering Product Development Pillar,
Singapore University of Technology and Design,
Singapore
e-mail: arlindo_silva@sutd.edu.sg

Christine Yogiaman

Architecture and Sustainable Design Pillar,
Singapore University of Technology and Design,
Singapore
e-mail: christine_yogiaman@sutd.edu.sg

Nilanjan Raghunath

Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences Pillar,
Singapore University of Technology and Design,
Singapore
e-mail: nilanjan@sutd.edu.sg

Portions of this paper and data have been previously presented at the ASME IDETC 2018 Conference (J. Kang et al., “Exploring the use of a full factorial design of experiment method to study design briefs for creative ideation”).

Contributed by the Design Theory and Methodology Committee of ASME for publication in the Journal of Mechanical Design. Manuscript received November 9, 2018; final manuscript received March 6, 2019; published online March 28, 2019. Assoc. Editor: Julie Linsey.

J. Mech. Des 141(7), 071102 (Mar 28, 2019) (14 pages) Paper No: MD-18-1825; doi: 10.1115/1.4043207 History: Received November 09, 2018; Accepted March 09, 2019

This study aims to understand how information in design briefs affects the creativity of design outcomes. We tested this during a Collaborative Sketching (C-Sketch) ideation exercise with first-year undergraduate student designers. We focus on four types of stimuli—quantitative requirements, a visual example (video), a physical example, and contextual information—and we measure creativity according to three metrics—novelty, appropriateness, and usability with either the participants’ gender or the gender diversity of the participants’ groups. The findings suggest that the main effect of providing a video example results in high appropriateness and usability scores but low novelty scores and that physical-contextual briefs have high novelty and usability scores. In addition, we did not find any correlation between gender or gender diversity and creativity scores.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Camburn, B. A., Auernhammer, J. M., Sng, K. H. E., Mignone, P. J., Arlitt, R. M., Perez, K. B., Huang, Z., Basnet, S., Blessing, L. T., and Wood, K. L., 2017, “Design Innovation: A Study of Integrated Practice,” Proceedings of the ASME IDETC/CIE, OH, Aug. 6–9.
Carlgren, L., Rauth, I., and Elmquist, M., 2016, “Framing Design Thinking: The Concept in Idea and Enactment,” Creat. Innov. Manag., 25(1), pp. 38–57. [CrossRef]
Sosa, R., Vasconcelos, L. A., and Cardoso, C., 2018, “Design Briefs in Creativity Studies,” Proceedings of the ICDC, Bath, UK, Jan. 31–Feb. 2, pp. 1–8.
Lawson, R. B., 2006, How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified, Butterworth Architecture, Jordan Hill, Oxford.
Buchanan, R., 1992, “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking,” Des. Issues, 8(2), pp. 5–21. [CrossRef]
Dell'Era, C., Buganza, T., Fecchio, C., and Verganti, R., 2011, “Language Brokering: Stimulating Creativity During the Concept Development Phase,” Creat. Innov. Manag., 20(1), pp. 36–48. [CrossRef]
Dell’Era, C., and Verganti, R., 2007, “Strategies of Innovation and Imitation of Product Languages,” J. Prod. Innov. Manag., 24(6), pp. 580–599. [CrossRef]
Cillo, P., and Verona, G., 2008, “Search Styles in Style Searching: Exploring Innovation Strategies in Fashion Firms,” Long Range Plann., 41(6), pp. 650–671. [CrossRef]
Goldschmidt, G., and Rodgers, P. A., 2013, “The Design Thinking Approaches of Three Different Groups of Designers Based on Self-Reports,” Des. Stud., 34(4), pp. 454–471. [CrossRef]
Zheng, X., Ritter, S. C., and Miller, S. R., 2018, “How Concept Selection Tools Impact the Development of Creative Ideas in Engineering Design Education,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 140(5), p. 052002. [CrossRef]
Toh, C. A., and Miller, S. R., 2015, “How Engineering Teams Select Design Concepts: A View Through the Lens of Creativity,” Des. Stud., 38, pp. 111–138. [CrossRef]
Phillips, P. L., 2004, Creating the Perfect Design Brief – How to Manage Design for Strategic Advantage, Allworth Press, New York.
Ryd, N., 2004, “The Design Brief as Carrier of Client Information During the Construction Process,” Des. Stud., 25(3), pp. 231–249. [CrossRef]
Sagebiel, F., and Dahmen, J., 2006, “Masculinities in Organizational Cultures in Engineering Education in Europe: Results of the European Union Project WomEng,” Eur. J. Eng. Educ., 31(1), pp. 5–14. [CrossRef]
Ihsen, S., 2005, “Special Gender Studies for Engineering?,” Eur. J. Eng. Educ., 30(4), pp. 487–494. [CrossRef]
Tai, R. H., and Sadler, P. M., 2001, “Gender Differences in Introductory Undergraduate Physics Performance: University Physics Versus College Physics in the USA,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., 23(10), pp. 1017–1037. [CrossRef]
Seymour, E., 1995, “The Loss of Women From Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Undergraduate Majors: An Explanatory Account,” Sci. Educ., 79(4), pp. 437–473. [CrossRef]
Laeser, M., Moskal, B. M., Knecht, R., and Lasich, D., 2003, “Engineering Design: Examining the Impact of Gender and the Team's Gender Composition,” J. Eng. Educ., 92(1), pp. 49–56. [CrossRef]
Toh, C. A., Strohmetz, A. A., and Miller, S. R., 2016, “The Effects of Gender and Idea Goodness on Ownership Bias in Engineering Design Education,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 138(10), p. 101105. [CrossRef]
Sosa, M. E., and Marle, F., 2013, “Assembling Creative Teams in New Product Development Using Creative Team Familiarity,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 135(8), p. 081009. [CrossRef]
Koronis, G., Silva, A., and Kang, J., 2018, “The Impact of Design Briefs on Creativity: A Study on Measuring Student Designers Outcomes,” Proceedings of the DESIGN, Dubrovnik, Croatia, May 20–24, pp. 2461–2472.
Kang, K. S. J., Chia, P. Z., Koronis, G., and Silva, A., 2018, “Exploring the Use of a Full Factorial Design of Experiment to Study Design Briefs for Creative Ideation,” ASME-IDETC, Quebec, Canada, Aug. 26–29, p. V007T06A008.
Koronis, G., Silva, A., Kang, J., and Chia, P. Z., 2018, “Impact of Design Briefs on Creative Outcome: A Factorial Study on Student Designers Creativity,” Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, London, UK, Sept. 6–7, pp. 218–223.
Antony, J., 2014, Design of Experiments for Engineers and Scientists, Elsevier Ltd, London.
Koronis, G., Silva, A., and Foong, S., 2017, “Predicting the Flexural Performance of Woven Flax Reinforced Epoxy Composites Using Design of Experiments,” Mater. Today-Commun., 13, pp. 317–324. [CrossRef]
Shah, J. J., Kulkarni, S. V., 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]
Malter, A. J., 1998, “Effects of Perceptual Cues and Extrinsic Motivation on Creative Problem Solving,” Proceedings of the COGSCI, Madison, WI, Aug. 1–4, pp. 1090–1095.
Nagasundaram, M., and Bostrom, R. P., 1995, “Structuring Creativity With GSS: An Experiment,” Proceedings of the AMCIS-145, Pittsburgh, PA, Aug. 25–27, pp. 258–260.
Alipour, L., Faizi, M., Moradi, A. M., and Akrami, G., 2017, “A Review of Design Fixation: Research Directions and Key Factors,” Int. J. Des. Creativity Innov., 6(1–2), pp. 22–35.
Faber, J., and Fonseca, L. M., 2014, “How Sample Size Influences Research Outcomes,” Dental Press J. Orthod., 19(4), pp. 27–29. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Amabile, T. M., 1996, Creativity in Context, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Amabile, T. M., 1982, “The Social-Psychology of Creativity: A Consensual Assessment Technique,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 43(5), pp. 997–1013. [CrossRef]
Shah, J. J., Vargas-Hernandez, N. O. E., Summers, J. D., and Kulkarni, S., 2001, “Collaborative Sketching (C-Sketch)—An Idea Generation Technique for Engineering Design,” J. Creative Behav., 35(3), pp. 168–198. [CrossRef]
Bourgeois-Bougrine, S., Buisine, S., Vandendriessche, C., Glaveanu, V., and Lubart, T., 2017, “Engineering Students’ Use of Creativity and Development Tools in Conceptual Product Design: What, When and How?,” Think. Skills Creat., 24, pp. 104–117. [CrossRef]
Christiaans, H., and Venselaar, K., 2005, “Creativity in Design Engineering and the Role of Knowledge: Modelling the Expert,” Int. J. Technol. Des. Ed., 15(3), pp. 217–236. [CrossRef]
Kampylis, P. G., and Valtanen, J., 2010, “Redefining Creativity—Analyzing Definitions, Collocations, and Consequences,” J. Creative Behav., 44(3), pp. 191–214. [CrossRef]
Shah, J. J., Smith, S. M., and Vargas-Hernandez, N., 2003, “Metrics for Measuring Ideation Effectiveness,” Des. Stud., 24(2), pp. 111–134. [CrossRef]
Cropley, D., and Cropley, A., 2005, Creativity Across Domains: Faces of the Muse, J. C. Kaufman and J. Baer, eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 169–185.
ISO, 2013, “Usability of Consumer Products and Products for Public Use - Part 2: Summative Test Method,” ISO/TS 20282-2:2013, p. 50 https://www.iso.org/standard/62733.html.
Nielsen, J., 1993, Usability Engineering, Academic Press, Cambridge, MA.
Sauer, J., and Sonderegger, A., 2009, “The Influence of Prototype Fidelity and Aesthetics of Design in Usability Tests: Effects on User Behaviour, Subjective Evaluation and Emotion,” Appl. Ergon., 40(4), pp. 670–677. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B., and Schumacher, J. S., 1993, “Constraining Effects of Examples in a Creative Generation Task,” Mem. Cogn., 21(6), pp. 837–845. [CrossRef]
Fu, K., Cagan, J., and Kotovsky, K., 2010, “Design Team Convergence: The Influence of Example Solution Quality,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 132(11), p. 111005. [CrossRef]
Raaijmakers, J. G., and Shiffrin, R. M., 1981, “Search of Associative Memory,” Psychol. Rev., 88(2), pp. 93–134. [CrossRef]
Restrepo, J., and Christiaans, H., 2004, “Problem Structuring and Information Access in Design,” J. Des. Res., 4(2), pp. 218–236.
Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., and Blanchard, C., 2000, “On the Assessment of Situational Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: The Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS),” Motiv. Emot., 24(3), pp. 175–213. [CrossRef]
Sadowska, N., and Laffy, D., 2017, “The Design Brief: Inquiry Into the Starting Point in a Learning Journey,” Des. J., 20(Suppl 1), pp. S1380–S1389.
Watson, P., “Rules of Thumb on Magnitudes of Effect Sizes,” Rules of Thumb on Magnitudes of Effect Sizes, http://imaging.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/statswiki/FAQ/effectSize. Accessed July 2018.
Magurran, A. E., 1988, “Choosing and Interpreting Diversity Measures,” Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement, Springer, Dordrecht, Germany, pp. 61–80.
Abraham, A., 2016, “Gender and Creativity: An Overview of Psychological and Neuroscientific Literature,” Brain Imaging Behav., 10(2), pp. 609–618. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Stoltzfus, G., Leigh Nibbelink, B., Vredenburg, D., and Hyrum, E., 2011, “Gender, Gender Role, and Creativity,” Soc. Behav. Pers., 39(3), pp. 425–432. [CrossRef]
Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P., and Evans, J. M., 2008, “Unlocking the Effects of Gender Faultlines on Team Creativity: Is Activation the Key?,” J. Appl. Psychol., 93(1), pp. 225–234. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hocking, I., and Vernon, D., 2017, “A Bridge Too Far: Conceptual Distance and Creative Ideation,” Creativity Theor. Res. Appl, 4(2), pp. 333–352. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

(a) Control brief, (b) control brief with quantitative requirements (Q), (c) visual/video example (V) and physical example (P), and (d) contextual information (C)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Examples of sketches with high scores for each of the three creativity metrics: (a) novelty, (b) appropriateness, and (c) usability

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Examples of sketches with low scores for each of the three creativity metrics: (a) novelty, (b) appropriateness, and (c) usability

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Normal probability plot of novelty effects

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Normal probability plot of appropriateness effects

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Normal probability plot of usability effects

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Scatterplot of mean novelty scores of groups by each group's index of diversity. Scatterplots for mean appropriateness and mean usability scores are in Appendix D.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Main effect plots (data means) for novelty scores

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Normal probability plot of novelty effects

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Normal probability plot of appropriateness effects

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Normal probability plot of usability effects

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

(a) Scatterplot of mean appropriateness scores of groups by gender diversity of groups and (b) scatterplot of mean usability scores of groups by gender diversity of groups

Tables

Errata

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