18
(Un)structured sources of inspira2on Comparing the effects of gamelike cards and design cards on crea6vity in codesign process Joanna Kwiatkowska, Tallinn University, Estonia Agnieszka Szóstek, Warsaw Academy of Fine Arts, Poland David Lamas, Tallinn University, Estonia

(Un)structured sources of inspiration

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

(Un)structured  sources  of  inspira2on    Comparing  the  effects  of  game-­‐like  cards  and  design  cards  on  crea6vity  in  co-­‐design  process  

Joanna  Kwiatkowska,  Tallinn  University,  Estonia  Agnieszka  Szóstek,  Warsaw  Academy  of  Fine  Arts,  Poland  David  Lamas,  Tallinn  University,  Estonia  

Inspira6on  and  crea6vity  in  co-­‐design  

•  Expressions  of  crea6vity  are  mo6vated  by  inspira2on  (Sanders  et  al.,  2008),  

•  Inspira6on  plays  a  crucial  role  in  the  design  process  as  it  oMen  determines  the  power  of  formulated  concepts  (Zhao,  2013),  

•  Being  inspired  means  to  be  mentally  s2mulated  in  an  intangible  way  to  do  or  feel  something  (Halskov  et  al.,  2006).  

Goal  of  the  study  

To  gain  understanding  regarding    the  effec6veness  of  two  different  sources    of  inspira6on  (structured  and  unstructured)    in  facilita6ng  par6cipants  of  a  co-­‐design  ac6vity  in  deriving  a  large  number  of  crea6ve  ideas  in    a  short  6me.  

Sources  of  inspira6on  

! !PLEX  Cards:  structured   DIXIT  Cards:  unstructured  

The  cards  

PLEX  Cards  •  design  cards  (Lucero  et  al.,  2010)    •  communicate  22  categories  of  the  so-­‐called  PLEX  (Playful  

Experience)  framework  (Lucero  et  al.,  2010;  Arrasvuori    et  al.,  2011),  

•  there  are  two  images  of  each  card,  an  abstract  and  a  concrete  one,  and  the  contents  describing  either  human  emo6ons  or  a  concrete  applicability  (Lucero  et  al.,  2010).  It  provides  different  entry  points  for  designers,  so  that  they  can  relate  to  material  while  producing  new  ideas.  

 

!

The  cards  

DIXIT  Cards  •  designed  for  a  storytelling  game,  where  the  purpose      

of  the  game  is  to  create  sentences  (stories)  based  on  the  images  from  the  deck  of  84  cards.  

•  DIXIT  cards  present  an  abstract  drawing,  which  category  is  undefined  and  the  meaning  open  for  interpreta6on.  The  designer  cannot  find  the  entry  points  to  relate  the  material  explicitly  but  can  form  free  associa6ons  with  various  elements  presented  on  the  card  itself.  

!

The  experiment  Comparison  of  the  effec6veness  of  both  types    of  cards  in  s6mula6ng  inspira6on  •  39  industrial  designers  (26  female,  13  male,  mean  age:  27),  

•  two  design  workshops:    •  group  1:  18  par6cipants  divided  on  6  subgroups  (6  triads)  •  group  2:  21  par6cipants  divided  on  7  subgroups  (7  triads)  

Group  1   Group  2  

without  any  suppor6ng  tools   without  any  suppor6ng  tools  

with  PLEX  Cards   with  PLEX  Cards  

with  DIXIT  Cards   with  PLEX  Cards  

Working  hypotheses  

H1:  The  use  of  either  PLEX  or  DIXIT  Cards  results  in  more  concepts  in  comparison  to  the  idea-­‐genera?on  process  applied  without  any  s?muli.      H2:  There  is  a  significant  difference  in  the  number  of  concepts  produced  while  applying  PLEX  and  DIXIT  cards.    

Study  set-­‐up  

•  introduc6on  to  the  study,    •  defini6on  of  the  habits  to  change  (par6cipants  worked  in  triads),    

•  first  round  of  idea  genera6on  without  any  suppor6ng  tools,    

•  two  rounds  on  idea  genera6on  using  three  randomly  selected  cards  (counterbalanced)  (the  PLEX  Brainstorming  method  (Lucero  et  al.,  2010)  was  applied),    

•  filling  in  the  study  forms,    •  Focus  Group  discussion.    

Data  analysis  The  round  of  idea2on   A  number  of  generated  ideas  

without  any  suppor6ng  tools   176  

with  PLEX  Cards   226  

with  DIXIT  Cards   212  

•  total  number  of  concepts:  614  •  131  unique  statements  for  qualita6ve  analysis  •  affinity  diagram  technique,  •  conven6onal  content  analysis.  

Results  

•  The  experiment  revealed  that  cards  helped  par6cipants  to  generate  more  ideas  comparing  to  the  round  without  cards  (H1  confirmed),  

•  There  was  no  significant  difference  iden6fied  in  the  number  of  concepts  produced  while  applying  DIXIT  or  PLEX  cards  (H2  rejected)  

Results  

Working  without  suppor2ng  tools:  •  Designers  tended  to  think  individually,  •  The  generated  ideas  were  based  on  designers’  previous  experiences  and  observa6ons,  

•  The  designers  admiced  to  keep  the  given  idea  (usually  the  first  that  came  to  mind)  and  not  changing  the  context.  

Results  

Working  with  cards:  •  Both  types  of  cards  let  to  the  percep6on  of  genera6ng  more  ideas,  s6mulated  the  discussion  within  the  group  and  increased  engagement  in  the  idea6on  process,  

•  The  cards  brought  openness  to  the  discussion,  •  Not  only  the  context  of  the  pictures/photos  presented  on  the  cards  inspired  the  designers,  but  also  the  par6cular  elements  visible  on  the  given  card,  

•  The  pictures  presented  on  the  cards  supported  designers  in  expressing  their  thoughts,  revealing  their  reasoning  process,  calling  back  experiences  as  well  as  improvising,  

Results  

Working  with  cards:  •  The  cards  brought  an  element  of  surprise  making  the  idea6on  process  more  pleasurable.  

•  The  cards  opened  new  context  to  the  tackled  problems  enabling  par6cipants  to  think  outside  the  box,  

•  The  cards  enabled  designers  to  bring  the  tackled  problem  to  the  context  of  the  card  rather  than  genera6ng  new  ideas  for  the  problem  itself.  

Differences  between  PLEX  and  DIXIT  Cards  

•  abstrac6veness  vs.  concretness  of  the  cards  –    the  dimension  regarding  the  visuals  (material)  presented  in  the  cards,    

•  posi6vity  vs.  nega6vity  of  the  visuals  –  the  emo6ons  evoked  with  the  given  card  decks,    

•  specifying  the  goal  vs.  suppor6ng  unconven6onal  thinking  –  the  contexts  in  which  the  cards  are  applicable,    

•  mul6layered  vs.  flat  cards’  construc6on  –  cards  learnability  and  easiness  of  applica6on,    

•  support  for  innova6ve  vs.  conven6onal  ideas  –  the  characteris6cs  of  the  obtained  results  when  applying  the  given  card  type.    

 

Summary  

•  The  cards  structured  the  group  work,  •  Supported  designers  in  storytelling,  •  Introduced  new  contexts  to  the  problem,  •  We  argue  that  designer  are  likely  to  choose  an  unstructured  source  of  inspira6on  for  the  idea6on  process  (DIXIT  cards),  

•  Designers  considered  working  with  DIXIT  cards  as  more  pleasurable  

Summary  

•  PLEX  Cards  were  indicated  as  the  leas  preferred  idea6on  method,  

•  PLEX  Cards  seem  more  applicable,  whenever  the  design  problem  has  not  been  precisely  specified,  so  they  could  provide  the  context  and  help  to  direct  future  thinking  about  the  problem  itself  

Future  studies  

•  We  aim  to  evaluate  the  effec6veness  of  both  types  of  cards  in  the  idea6on  process  while  engaging  non-­‐designers  and  representa6ves  of  different  user  groups  (e.g.  stakeholders,  experts,  etc.).