Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-t27h7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-01T15:08:58.099Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Three-Dimensional Approach for Assessing Uncommonness of Ideas

Part of: Collaborative Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Lorenzo Fiorineschi ,
Francesco Saverio Frillici  and
Federico Rotini

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A posteriori novelty metrics are often used in design research, in order to extract important information about creativity. However, different assessment approaches can be found in the literature, each of them with related pros and cons. In particular, weighted uncommonness, overall uncommonness and uncommonness across groups are the three main families of a-posteriori novelty metrics identified in this paper. Each of the considered literature metrics can provide specific types of information about the uncommonness of ideas, but in certain experimental circumstances, it could be difficult to rapidly identify the best-suited approach. This paper proposes an integrated procedure where the advantages offered by the three families of metrics can be applied concurrently. A generic case study is used for a first application of the proposal, and the obtained results show that a more comprehensive set of information about a-posteriori novelty can be extracted. In particular, novelty data from the three families of metrics are extracted in a single assessment process.

Keywords

CreativityNovelty MetricsEvaluationDesign theoryNovelty Assessment
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 229 - 238
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

References

Brown, D.C. (2014), “Problems with the Calculation of Novelty Metrics”, Proceedings of the 6th Int. Conf. on Design Computing and Cognition, available at: http://web.cs.wpi.edu/∼dcb/Papers/DCC14/DCC14-Brown-Novelty-workshop.pdf.Google Scholar
Cascini, G., Fiorineschi, L. and Rotini, F. (2018), “Investigating on the Re-use of Conceptual Design Representations”, International Design Conference - Design 2018, pp. 1009–1020.Google Scholar
Corazza, G.E. and Agnoli, S. (Eds.). (2016), “Creativity in the Twenty First Century Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking”, Springer Science+Business Media Singapore, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-618-8.Google Scholar
Fiorineschi, L., Frillici, F.S. and Rotini, F. (2018a), “Issues Related to Missing Attributes in A-Posteriori Novelty Assessments”, International Design Conference - Design 2018, pp. 1067–1078.Google Scholar
Fiorineschi, L., Frillici, F.S. and Rotini, F. (2018b), “A-Posteriori Novelty Assessments for Sequential Design Sessions”, International Design Conference - Design 2018, pp. 1079–1090.Google Scholar
Gero, J.S. (1990), “Design Prototypes : A Knowledge Representation Schema for Design”, AI Magazine, Vol. 11 No. 4.Google Scholar
Jagtap, S. (2016), “Assessing Design Creativity: Refinements to the Novelty Assessment Method”, International Design Conference - DESIGN 2016, pp. 1045–1054.Google Scholar
Jansson, D.G. and Smith, S.M. (1991), “Design fixation”, Design Studies, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 3–11.Google Scholar
Johnson, T.A., Caldwell, B.W., Cheeley, A. and Green, M.G. (2016), “Comparison and Extension of Novelty Metrics for Problem-Solving Tasks”, Proceedings of the ASME 2016 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference IDETC/CIE 2016, available at: https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2016-60319.Google Scholar
Koh, E.C.Y. and De Lessio, M.P. (2018), “Fixation and distraction in creative design : the repercussions of reviewing patent documents to avoid infringement”, Research in Engineering Design, Springer, London, Vol. 0 No. 0, p. 0.Google Scholar
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”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 133 No. 3, p. 031008.Google Scholar
Lopez-Mesa, B. and Vidal, R. (2006), “Novelty Metrics in Engineering Design Experiments”, 9th International Design Conference, DESIGN 2006, pp. 557–564.Google Scholar
Nelson, B.A., Wilson, J.O., Rosen, D. and Yen, J. (2009), “Refined metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness”, Design Studies, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 737–743.Google Scholar
Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J. and Grote, K.H. (2007), Engineering Design 3rd Ed, Springer-Verlag, London, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-319-2.Google Scholar
Peeters, J., Verhaegen, P.A., Vandevenne, D. and Duflou, J.R. (2010), “Refined Metrics for Measuring Novelty in Ideation”, Proceedings of IDMME - Virtual Concept 2010, pp. 1–4.Google Scholar
Sarkar, P. and Chakrabarti, A. (2008), “Studying engineering design creativity - Developing a Common Definition and Associated Measures”, in Gero, J.S. (Ed.), NSF International Workshop on Studying Design Creativity'08.Google Scholar
Sarkar, P. and Chakrabarti, A. (2011), “Assessing design creativity”, Design Studies, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 348–383.Google Scholar
Shah, J.J., Vargas-Hernandez, N. and Smith, S.M. (2003), “Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness”, Design Studies, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 111–134.Google Scholar
Sluis-Thiescheffer, W., Bekker, T., Eggen, B., Vermeeren, A. and De Ridder, H. (2016), “Measuring and comparing novelty for design solutions generated by young children through different design methods”, Design Studies, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 43, pp. 48–73.Google Scholar
Srivathsavai, R., Genco, N., Katj, and Seepersad, C.C. (2010), “Study of Existing Metrics Used in Measurement if Ideation Effectiveness”, Proceedings of the ASME 2010 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference IDETC/CIE 2010.Google Scholar
Tsenn, J., Atilola, O., McAdams, D.A. and Linsey, J.S. (2014), “The effects of time and incubation on design concept generation”, Design Studies, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 500–526.Google Scholar
Vargas-Hernandez, N., Okudan, G.E. and Schmidt, L.C. (2012), “Effectiveness Metrics for Ideation: Merging Genealogy Trees and Improving Novelty Metric”, Proceedings of the ASME 2012 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference IDETC/CIE 2012, available at: https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2012-70295.Google Scholar
Vargas-Hernandez, N., Schmidt, L.C. and Okudan, G.E. (2013), “Systematic Ideation Effectiveness Study of TRIZ”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 135 No. 10, p. 101009.Google Scholar
Vargas-Hernandez, N., Shah, J.J. and Smith, S.M. (2010), “Understanding design ideation mechanisms through multilevel aligned empirical studies”, Design Studies, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 382–410.Google Scholar