On the Benefits and Pitfalls of Analogies for Innovative Design: Ideation Performance Based on Analogical Distance, Commonness, and Modality of Examples
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 harn...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of mechanical design (1990) 2011-08, Vol.133 (8) |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 8 |
container_start_page | |
container_title | Journal of mechanical design (1990) |
container_volume | 133 |
creator | Chan, Joel Fu, Katherine Schunn, Christian Cagan, Jonathan Wood, Kristin Kotovsky, Kenneth |
description | 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. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1115/1.4004396 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1671286420</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1671286420</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a378t-d4f7cdfbbc742ef56f4fb3185a10d6fe8612a78ad67d753c6dcdff7716852a843</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kE9vEzEQxVcIJErhwJmLL0ggdVvb63_hVtICkVq1Bzhbk_W4uNq1w86mar9JPy4OiTjN6Pk3bzyvad4LfiqE0GfiVHGuuoV50RwJLV274Fy8rD3XvOXKytfNG6L7Kgqn9FHzfJPZ_BvZV8wY00wMcmC3aY4wDMRKZOcZhnKXkFgsE1vlXB5gTg_ILpDSXf7CVgGrUDK7xakiI-S-2gFhYFU8jPcwsItE8-7xhC3LOJackejk377rEmBI89Nu3-UjjJsB6W3zqv6B8N2hHje_vl3-XP5or26-r5bnVy101s1tUNH2Ia7XvVUSozZRxXUnnAbBg4nojJBgHQRjg9Vdb0Klo7XCOC3Bqe64-bT33UzlzxZp9mOiHocBMpYteWGskM4oySv6eY_2UyGaMPrNlEaYnrzgfpe-F_6QfmU_HmyB6vFxqpcn-j8glXZmoXbchz0HNKK_L9upBkZeWSftovsLszeOdQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1671286420</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>On the Benefits and Pitfalls of Analogies for Innovative Design: Ideation Performance Based on Analogical Distance, Commonness, and Modality of Examples</title><source>ASME Digital Collection Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Chan, Joel ; Fu, Katherine ; Schunn, Christian ; Cagan, Jonathan ; Wood, Kristin ; Kotovsky, Kenneth</creator><creatorcontrib>Chan, Joel ; Fu, Katherine ; Schunn, Christian ; Cagan, Jonathan ; Wood, Kristin ; Kotovsky, Kenneth</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1050-0472</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1528-9001</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1115/1.4004396</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: ASME</publisher><subject>Analogies ; Applied sciences ; Exact sciences and technology ; Guidelines ; Industrial design, planning, organization, safety ; Inspiration ; Mechanical engineering. Machine design ; Representations ; Texts</subject><ispartof>Journal of mechanical design (1990), 2011-08, Vol.133 (8)</ispartof><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a378t-d4f7cdfbbc742ef56f4fb3185a10d6fe8612a78ad67d753c6dcdff7716852a843</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a378t-d4f7cdfbbc742ef56f4fb3185a10d6fe8612a78ad67d753c6dcdff7716852a843</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,38520</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=24586946$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Chan, Joel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fu, Katherine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schunn, Christian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cagan, Jonathan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wood, Kristin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kotovsky, Kenneth</creatorcontrib><title>On the Benefits and Pitfalls of Analogies for Innovative Design: Ideation Performance Based on Analogical Distance, Commonness, and Modality of Examples</title><title>Journal of mechanical design (1990)</title><addtitle>J. Mech. Des</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Analogies</subject><subject>Applied sciences</subject><subject>Exact sciences and technology</subject><subject>Guidelines</subject><subject>Industrial design, planning, organization, safety</subject><subject>Inspiration</subject><subject>Mechanical engineering. Machine design</subject><subject>Representations</subject><subject>Texts</subject><issn>1050-0472</issn><issn>1528-9001</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNo9kE9vEzEQxVcIJErhwJmLL0ggdVvb63_hVtICkVq1Bzhbk_W4uNq1w86mar9JPy4OiTjN6Pk3bzyvad4LfiqE0GfiVHGuuoV50RwJLV274Fy8rD3XvOXKytfNG6L7Kgqn9FHzfJPZ_BvZV8wY00wMcmC3aY4wDMRKZOcZhnKXkFgsE1vlXB5gTg_ILpDSXf7CVgGrUDK7xakiI-S-2gFhYFU8jPcwsItE8-7xhC3LOJackejk377rEmBI89Nu3-UjjJsB6W3zqv6B8N2hHje_vl3-XP5or26-r5bnVy101s1tUNH2Ia7XvVUSozZRxXUnnAbBg4nojJBgHQRjg9Vdb0Klo7XCOC3Bqe64-bT33UzlzxZp9mOiHocBMpYteWGskM4oySv6eY_2UyGaMPrNlEaYnrzgfpe-F_6QfmU_HmyB6vFxqpcn-j8glXZmoXbchz0HNKK_L9upBkZeWSftovsLszeOdQ</recordid><startdate>20110801</startdate><enddate>20110801</enddate><creator>Chan, Joel</creator><creator>Fu, Katherine</creator><creator>Schunn, Christian</creator><creator>Cagan, Jonathan</creator><creator>Wood, Kristin</creator><creator>Kotovsky, Kenneth</creator><general>ASME</general><general>American Society of Mechanical Engineers</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FR3</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20110801</creationdate><title>On the Benefits and Pitfalls of Analogies for Innovative Design: Ideation Performance Based on Analogical Distance, Commonness, and Modality of Examples</title><author>Chan, Joel ; Fu, Katherine ; Schunn, Christian ; Cagan, Jonathan ; Wood, Kristin ; Kotovsky, Kenneth</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a378t-d4f7cdfbbc742ef56f4fb3185a10d6fe8612a78ad67d753c6dcdff7716852a843</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Analogies</topic><topic>Applied sciences</topic><topic>Exact sciences and technology</topic><topic>Guidelines</topic><topic>Industrial design, planning, organization, safety</topic><topic>Inspiration</topic><topic>Mechanical engineering. Machine design</topic><topic>Representations</topic><topic>Texts</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Chan, Joel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fu, Katherine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schunn, Christian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cagan, Jonathan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wood, Kristin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kotovsky, Kenneth</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology & Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><jtitle>Journal of mechanical design (1990)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Chan, Joel</au><au>Fu, Katherine</au><au>Schunn, Christian</au><au>Cagan, Jonathan</au><au>Wood, Kristin</au><au>Kotovsky, Kenneth</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>On the Benefits and Pitfalls of Analogies for Innovative Design: Ideation Performance Based on Analogical Distance, Commonness, and Modality of Examples</atitle><jtitle>Journal of mechanical design (1990)</jtitle><stitle>J. Mech. Des</stitle><date>2011-08-01</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>133</volume><issue>8</issue><issn>1050-0472</issn><eissn>1528-9001</eissn><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.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>ASME</pub><doi>10.1115/1.4004396</doi></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1050-0472 |
ispartof | Journal of mechanical design (1990), 2011-08, Vol.133 (8) |
issn | 1050-0472 1528-9001 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1671286420 |
source | ASME Digital Collection Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Analogies Applied sciences Exact sciences and technology Guidelines Industrial design, planning, organization, safety Inspiration Mechanical engineering. Machine design Representations Texts |
title | On the Benefits and Pitfalls of Analogies for Innovative Design: Ideation Performance Based on Analogical Distance, Commonness, and Modality of Examples |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T01%3A16%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=On%20the%20Benefits%20and%20Pitfalls%20of%20Analogies%20for%20Innovative%20Design:%20Ideation%20Performance%20Based%20on%20Analogical%20Distance,%20Commonness,%20and%20Modality%20of%20Examples&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20mechanical%20design%20(1990)&rft.au=Chan,%20Joel&rft.date=2011-08-01&rft.volume=133&rft.issue=8&rft.issn=1050-0472&rft.eissn=1528-9001&rft_id=info:doi/10.1115/1.4004396&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1671286420%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1671286420&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |