Lab/Zha… · Web viewProceedings of the ASME 2017 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering ConferenceIDETC/CIE 2016August
DETC2017-67341
A Literature Review of Idea Generation and Dissemination Methods in
Engineering Design
Zixuan Zhao
Mechanical Engineering
ABSTRACT
Based on the Information Theory proposed by Claude E. Shannon,
information is transferred through a process consisting of an
information source, a transmitter, a channel, a receiver and its
destination. This paper focuses on the idea generation and
dissemination process in engineering design. This is one example of
information theory utilized within design teams, with the channel
in this case being the design tools (e.g., CAD, sketches, etc.).
The objective of the idea generation and dissemination phase of
design is to minimize information loss from Designer A who has an
idea, to Designer B who wants to understand the idea.
Unfortunately, due to the large number of ways to deliver and
receive messages, the combination of generating and disseminating
messages with the lowest information loss is unknown. This paper
provides a review of the loss and quality of the information
communication for each combination. The paper includes i) an
introduction of idea generation and dissemination in engineering
design; ii) a review of prior work and iii) discussions pertaining
to proposed solutions to mitigate information loss.
1. Introduction
Idea generation is the mental process by which ideas are generated
[1] and is crucial step in engineering design [2]. Shannon and
Weaver’s mathematical theory of communication [3] represents how
information flows. More specifically, it describes the details of
information being transferred between the information source,
transmitter ,channel, receiver, destination [4] and the feedback
[3]. 1) An information source produces a message to be communicated
to the receiving terminal; 2) The transmitter is used to manipulate
on the message in order to produce a signal suitable for
transmission over the channel; 3) The channel is the medium used to
transmit the signal from the transmitter to receiver; 4) The
receiver constructs the message from the signal; and 5) The
destination is the individual receiving the message [4] and 6) The
feedback refers to the message sent from the destination to the
information source regarding the interpretation of the original
message[5]. The same concept applies to engineering design process
(Figure 1). Each element can be represented as an idea, a design, a
design tool, sharing method, the idea received by another designer
who wants to understand, and idea augmentation, respectively
(Figure 1). As indicated by Shannon and Weaver, entropy H (equation
1) is “associated with the amount of freedom of choice we have in
constructing messages”[3]. Additionally, this definition implies
that the message contains little error when the channel capacity is
equal to or larger than the entropy [3]. Therefore, a wise
selection of channels (design tools) can help users minimize the
information loss. By analyzing the Information Theory in a design
process, the idea generation and dissemination method can be
optimized.
Figure 1 A parallel comparison of Information Theory in the case of
a design process
2. Literature Review
Claude E. Shannon introduced the Information Theory [4] in the late
1940s, stating a communication system consists of an information
source, a transmitter, a channel, a receiver, and its destination.
As shown in figure 1, this theory applies to design as well. Each
component can be represented through a design process, designer A
with an idea, a design, a design tool, how the message gets shared
and designer B who wants to understand the message, and idea
augmentation, respectively. An idea is first envisioned by designer
A and then visualized through the aid of a design tool. This
process is categorized as idea generation. Following idea
generation, the idea will be transferred from the design tool to
designer B through a sharing method. This step is considered as
idea dissemination. In order to ensure the accuracy of the idea, an
idea augmentation process is introduced by providing feedback from
designer B to designer A. In this section, relevant studies will be
analyzed and discussed corresponding to each step in the design
process.
2.1 Idea Generation
Idea generation is the mental process by which ideas are generated
[1] and is a crucial step in engineering design [2]. Kulkarni et
al. classified idea generation techniques into two categories:
intuitive and logical [6]. Intuitive methods are sub-categorized
into Germinal, Transformational, Progressive, Organizational and
Hybrid[6]. For the interest of an iterative design process, only
Germinal and Progressive methods will be analyzed. Germinal is
defined as a designer starting with no existing solutions. This
includes one of the most commonly used techniques, brainstorming
[7]. A progressive method is characterized by ideas being generated
through repetitive runs in a progressive manner [6]. Some examples
are the Gallery Method[8], Method 6-3-5 [9] and C- sketch [10]. The
usefulness of these methods is also verified by Linsey et al. [11].
Similar to brainstorming, brainsketching/brainwriting [12] is used
to communicate silently[13]. In addition to 2D idea generation
method, there has been an increased use of CAD tools throughout
early conceptual design process since 2000[14]. Utilizing physical
models during engineering ideation process is also populated to
teach engineering to be innovative [15]. Current work involving
idea generation can be categorized into four groups that are useful
to engineering design: verbal expression, hand-written expression,
CAD (Computer Aided Design) and physical model. This section
provides literature reviews on these four categories, including
strengths and weaknesses of each method collected from different
authors (Table 1.)
Figure 2 Four Categories of Idea Generation Methods in Engineering
Process
2.1.1 Verbal/Textual Expressions
One of the roles of verbal expression is to frame a design problem
[16]–[19]. Brainstorming is one common idea generation technique
[20]. Osborn first introduced brainstorming [21] as a tool for idea
generation within an organization [22] in 1957. Brainstorming is
then employed to express verbal generation of ideas by a group
[13]. Verbal brainstorming is suggested for groups less than eight
individuals [23]. One of the biggest advantages of brainstorming is
that it enhances social interaction [24].
However, brainstorming may encourage interpersonal conflicts and
uneven discussions [13] due to the fact that only one individual
can speak at a time [20]. Additionally, Sutton et al. claimed that
brainstorming leads to lower productivity than working alone [25]
[22], because there is a correlation between product success and
the coherency of the documents [26]. Another disadvantage of verbal
expression was discussed in Brandinnote et al.’s book: verbal
messages tend to hinder the effectiveness of visual based
representations [27].
2.1.2 Hand-written expressions
Many researches [28]–[32] believe that free-hand sketches is
important for conceptual design [33]. McKoy et al. summarized the
benefits of sketching, including speeding up reasoning[34]–[38],
extending memory[34], [36], [39], helping
understanding/feedback[36]–[38], representing ideas consistently
[40], [41], etc. Graphical idea representation has been shown to be
better-suited than text information in a design context, according
to McKoy et al’s evaluation of textual versus graphical idea
representation data[42]. Additionally, it has been found that
impromptu sketches allow designer to obtain a clearer idea during
conceptual design phase [42]. According to Goodman [43], during
early design stages, freehand sketches are suitable for exploring
new design ideas due to its ambiguity [44].This statement also
resonates with what Van der Lugt suggests: during unstructured
design meetings, designers have been shown to use sketching
extensively when generating design ideas[7]. Based on Schon’s work,
designers have reflective conversation with his or her idea when
inspecting and refining their drawings[45] [46]. This cyclic
behavior allows a design to grow from a draft to a finished product
[33].
In addition to individually sketching, there is another
hand-written communication [13] technique: brainwriting or
brainsketching. It is defined as individuals silently sketching
their ideas on large sheets of paper including necessary
annotations. Individuals switch drawings, and silent sketching
continues for another period [8]. This method relates different
designs to earlier designs [20]. One advantage of this method is
that it allows designers to constantly think without the need to
wait for others to finish speaking [13]. It also ensures anonymity
throughout the idea generation process [13]. When group members
lack training in brainstorming, and there is no facilitator
available, employing brainwriting can avoid individuals from
dominating discussions [12]. The author also proposed electronic
individual pool writing, as mentioned by Vogel et al, electronic
individual poolwriting has the disadvantage of missing the
capability to review in real-time [47]. This issues has been solved
with the wide use of Google Docs in a collaborative environment
[48].
Some scholars state that the current computational tools provide
many features for visualizing, testing and implementing design
ideas for later stages, but do not support freehand sketch process
in the early design stages [44]. However the development of
interactive sketching [49] and translucent patches [50] has been
identified to be the solution. Designers tend to use sketches to
construct styling lines [51] due to the fact that the complexity
level of sketches is low (complexity level 1 or 2) [52].
2.1.3 CAD (Computer Aided Design)
In our society, a wide range of industries utilize CAD, including
engineering, entertainment, business etc. [53]. There are a wide
range of CAD software available that enable designers to interact
with and augment a design artifact. This includes SolidWorks,
Blender, OpenSCAD, Meshlab, etc. [54] In the past, engineering
students gained knowledge about CAD from schools [55]. Now, the
wide-use of internet has offered people many learning methods to
master different software, such as watching tutorials online,
taking self-paced, web-based classes, and reading documentations on
the Internet [56]. Based on Dubberly’s statement, the learning
curves of a designer acquiring knowledge and skills with the
progression of time can be represented through an S-curves [57].
The trend for each individual curve starts near zero quality and
slowly increases. Later, the speed of learning increases
drastically over time until the curves reach a plateau. This
finding shows the time needed for product design is shorter than
interactive design, which is defined as the design of the
interaction between users and products, such as apps or websites
[58]. For example, designing an aircraft engine takes longer than
designing a block because it requires the application of CAD
software (interactive design) due to the complexity of different
components. The complexity can later be used to analyze the
difficulty of production, use or maintenance [59]. Therefore, a
longer learning curve is needed, compared to 2D sketches. This has
also been verified by Cory, who stated that 3D modeling software
have extremely high learning curves. The more complex the task is,
the harder the production process will be [60].
Contrastingly, Robertson et al. mentioned, 2D sketches and verbal
discussions are suitable for immature designs, which tend to
utilize CAD tools less [32]. Therefore, the effectiveness of idea
generation involves the complexity of the task, which is associated
with the phase of the design. Some scholars have provided evidence
for the helpfulness of computer supported design tools during the
early concept development phase [37], [51], [61], [62]. As
indicated by Tovey el al., designers use CAD for various
presentation versions during later design phases as adding color,
varying shade, and etc. can easily be accomplish [51]. Researcher
have proposed that the application of CAD support in the early
design phases tend to eliminate creative visual thinking[52].
2.1.4 Physical Model
A physical model is built through the application of different
materials to represent a product approximation [63]. For example, a
prototype is defined by Lindwell et al. [44] as “a simple and
incomplete model of design to provide designers with ideas into
real world design requirement, allowing them to visualize, evaluate
learn and improve he design specifications prior to delivery”.
Additionally, a survey on product representations conducted by
Romer, et al. has indicated that physical models lead to memory
relief [64]. Studies have shown that these physical models can be
implemented into a design process in a variety of ways[64].
According to Tom Kelly[65], the CEO of IDEO design company physical
models are encouraged to be used during different stages of a
design process. Similarly, an observational study conducted by Ward
el al. at Toyota showed how physical models have helped to improve
efficiency[66]. As mentioned by, foam prototyping creates faster
than sketching or CAD [67].
However, it is also noteworthy that developing physical prototypes
is not only time and cost consuming[68], but also might lead to
design fixation[69] [70] [71]. This implies “a blind sometimes
counterproductive , adherence to a limited set of ideas in the
design process”[72]. Researchers like Vidal et al, discovered the
use of physical models does not affect the idea generation process
[73]. Viswanathan et al. believed that the decision to use physical
models is determined by the designer’s intuition and experience
[15]. This statement can be further explained by what Houde and
Hill’s claimed: deciding the type of prototyping based on the need
of audience requires a thoughtful process [74].
Table 1 summarizes related work on idea generation, including the
strengths and weakness of each method.
Table 1 Literature Review on Idea Generation
Figure 3 Four Categories of Idea Destination Methods in Engineering
Process
2.2 Idea Dissemination
Knowledge exchange plays an important role within groups [78] and
allows group interactions through a wide range of contexts [79]
[80]. Different media channels show various levels of ability to
facility understanding [76]. To further explain media channels,
richness can be utilized to characterize the capacity to facilitate
shared message [75] [81]. Daft et al. proposed four media channels
with increasing media richness: face-to-face, telephone, addressed
documents and unaddressed documents [76]. This section generalizes
the four channels into verbal discussion and written communication
with the addition of collaborative CAD and virtual/augmented
reality. Literature reviews on these four categories, including
strengths and weaknesses of each method collected from different
authors, entropy ( table 2) Mathematically, entropy is defined as
[4], where is the probability of a system being in cell i of its
phase [4], the base of the logarithm is 2, as it will generate a
unit of “bit” [82]. In this paper, the entropy of the information
source is considered constant, allowing us to examine the effect of
different idea dissemination methods.
2.2.1Verbal Discussion
Different from generating ideas through words images or etc,
delivering the idea requires group interaction [78]. In order to
maximize the effectiveness of idea dissemination, a combination of
face-to-face and asynchronous communication conducted at different
phases of group work should be used [83]. Face-to-face
communication is useful in the initial and final stage of group
work; However, it is more effective to use asynchronous
communication during the
execution phase of group work [83]. Media Richness Theory [84] [76]
points out that direct face-to-face channels offer a richer
communication due to various cues, such as voice inflection and
body language with rapid mutual feedback [85]. It has been found
that complexity can be used to analyze the difficulty of production
and use [86]. According to Melnik and Maurer, the higher the level
of complexity, the greater the need for verbal communication to
share knowledge interactively[85].
2.2.2 Written/ Drawing Communication
Documentation is used to store and transfer information in
engineering practices [85]. However according to Lethbridge et al.,
individuals in the industry indicated that documentation does not
update along with current state of software system[87]. Besides
written documentation, 2D Multiview drawings, being the most
commonly used in the industry, are easy to construct and are the
most accurate and descriptive type of engineering graphics [60].
According to Ferguson, talking sketches are associated with
designers utilizing a shared drawing surface in support of the
group discussion, making it easier to communicate within a group
[88]. Additionally, Rockwell et al. introduced engineers a
web-based platform to improve communication through documentation
and knowledge base sharing [89]. However, to be able to communicate
through 2D illustrations, individuals need to be equipped with many
years of professional training [60]. Studies have shown that idea
expression through a combination of text and sketch has gained
popularity compared to only words or sketch [20]. 2D engineering
drawings were the major means of design until the introduction of
3D representations [90]. 3D assisted visualizing details and
reducing rework [60], but lacks physical interactions [91].
2.2.3 Collaborate CAD
Different from generating ideas in CAD individually, Collaborative
CAD is important for dealing with complex projects including
designers from different disciplines [92]. One of the biggest
advantages of collaborative CAD (figure 4) system as suggested by
Chen et al., is that it allows itself to resolve conflict in the
early stages of team design [93], [94]. Currently, CAD conference
systems like Cspray [95], Webscope [96] and Autodesk Collaboration
for Revit[97] offer collaborative viewing and measuring [98]. Li et
al. proposed a developed collaborative CAD systems that enable
designers to effectively transmit visualizations and information
across networks [99]. More researchers have established a
synchronized collaborative design platform for CAD systems,
allowing designers to conduct real time exchange of representation
and modification/deletion [100]. In addition, Ramani et al. have
presented a web-based collaborative environment called CADDAC
(Computer Aided Distributed Design and Collaboration). This system
enables individual with limited hardware and software resources to
install and utilize this collaborative system [101].However, CAD
conference systems can only provide visualizations, and do not
allow real-time multi-user interaction[98]. Additionally, security
must be considered carefully for future development [99].
Fortunately, this security concern can be resolved through a
hierarchical role based viewing method that has been developed to
reduce cost and risks during design collaboration [102]
Figure 4 Multi-Touch Table Kiosk, introduced by Zoom Digital
Signage allows designers to collaborate on CAD designs [131].
2.2.4 Virtual/Augmented Reality
Adding a hand held device [103] or a head-mount three dimensional
display [104], Augmented Reality are developed to improve users’
perception and interaction with the real world [105] (Figure 2).
People can purchase Virtual Reality googles like Oculus Rift [106]
and Vive[107] from stores [108]. Perkunder et al. took advantage of
sketch, CAD and Virtual Reality platform in the early phases of
product design[109]. Similarly, Stark et al.[110], Wiese et
al.[111] and Israel et al.[112] developed hybrid modeling
environment using CAD and VR. This technique provides an intuitive
interaction in rapid prototyping process [113]. Similarly, Stelzer
took the advantage of Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) platform,
providing a system where designers can view, modify and simulate
geometries virtually[114].Unfortunately, it is found that using
VR/AR sets might cause motion sickness [115]. In automotive
industry, AR has been a tool for evaluation interior design in the
initial design development phase on real car body [116].
Unfortunately, most of the applications are still under development
due to the requirement of accuracy, ergonomics and human
factors[113].
In this section, a quantitative approach will be used to
demonstrate the information loss (entropy) for different idea
dissemination techniques. For example, if one designer wants to
design a mouse, he or she decided to use different methods of
delivering this message. Using verbal/textual communication, hse or
she will found that the word mouse has four intepretations [119],
generating a possibility of 25% for this case. Similarly, for
sketching or drawing, if we search “mouse” in Google image, we see
both an elctronic device [120] and a small anmial[121] (Figure 4).
This result shows that the possibility of 50% of getting the
message the designer wants to deliver. The last method is utilizing
CAD models. Bying searching “mouse” from GrabCAD [122], we were
provided with an animated anmial [123]and a wireless mouse [124]
(Figure 5) with a probablity of 50% of clarity. From Shannon’s
entropy equation, [4] , we can calucalte the entropy for each
senario . (Table 3) Contrastingly, when we do the same experiment,
but use the word “jet engine” instead, the calculated entropies are
able to reduce to zero due to the specificity of the idea.
Therefore, we can draw the conclusion that the more specific the
idea is, the lower the entropy it generates. Later design tend to
have more detailed information, which requires designer to
incorporate more 3D sketch or CAD drawings.
Figure 5 The working senario of the co-located users [117]
Fiugre 6 Top images from searching “mouse” from Goolge Image [120],
[121], [125]
Fiugre 7 Top images from searching “mouse” from Grabcad [122]
Word Searched
Table 2 Possibility and Entropy of Diffenert Idea Dissemination
Methods
Table 3 Literature Review on Idea Dissemination
2.3 Idea Augmentation
As indicated in Shannon’s’ Information Theory, there is a feedback
element in each cycle of communication [4]. Feedback provides
information to the transmitter, which can benefit the system
greatly when some disturbances are introduced into the channel
[127]. This is where the idea augmentation comes into play.
Critique can be used to minimize errors and improve designers’
understanding [128]. Asynchronous communication results in deeper
analysis and is extremely important of late stage of decision
making [129]. However the absence of interactivity may affect the
effectiveness of communication [129]. On the other side, immediate
feedback can be used to enhance speed and accuracy of communication
by quickly correcting misleading information [130]. Additionally,
it has been proved by Shirani et al. that synchronous communication
(instant feedback) is more appropriate for early state of problem
solving [129]. However, communicating synchronously and the
necessity of complex deliberation might become
challenging[130].
3. Proposed Approaches to Minimize Information Loss During the
Design Process
As indicated in Figure 5 during idea generation phase, if the
design is conceptual (early design phase), it is suggested to use
verbal, 2D sketch or physical model. When the idea is specific,
then a designer can proceed with either verbal expression because
as suggested in table 1, this methods is commonly used to
brainstorm quick ideas during early design phase. However, if the
concept is vague and the designer does not have enough time to
fully explain the concept with words, 2D sketch can help designer
to speed up the reasoning process, providing low entropy
information. However, if the designer has plenty of time to
visualize the idea, then physical model is more suitable.
If it is during the later phase where details are needed, it is
more effective to utilize 3D presentation, CAD model or written
documentation to illustrate well-developed thoughts. If a designer
is working individually to show the idea to the other individual,
3D drawings can provide detailed design with specifications.
However, if there are a group of individuals trying to interact
with the design product, then it is easier for them to take
advantage of collaborative 3D platform. Using collaborative CAD
(Figure 4) will minimize the entropy due to the instant
resolvability of the platform [94]. However, if during the later
design phase, there are not enough details for others to
comprehend, the using written documentations can communicate
details accurately as summarized in table 3. In the end, during the
idea augmentation phase, based on the type of feedback, designers
can choose to communicate either immediately or asynchronously. If
the individual who has received message from the information source
has relatively complicated feedback or critique, using asynchronous
methods, such as email, is more suitable to in provide depth
information than instant feedback [129].If the confusion from the
receiver is quick to resolve, then instant feedback, along with
multiple cues, language variety and personal focus[76] will be help
to lower the entropy of the information transmitted from the
information source in this case as well.
Figure 8 Flow chart of finding the the most effective way of
generating and disseminting ideas in a design process
4. Conclusion
During previous discussion, the work reviewed has provided their
benefits and drawbacks for using certain methods of communication
in engineering design processes. This has led us to identify the
most useful and effective way of generating and disseminating
information under a given circumstance (Figure 8). A combination of
the highlights of each product will bring us to a new effective
channel of idea generation and dissemination method in engineering
design. Shannon and Weaver introduced the Information Theory to
matmatilly solve general problems related to communcation systems.
Extending this theory to engineering design, this paper presents an
overview on idea communication in engineering design and provides
an approach to minimize information loss with the applciation of
diffenert idea generation, dissemniation and augmentation methods.
Based on the work reviewed, when the channel capacity is equal to
or larger than the entropy, the error is minimized[3]. In addition,
as indicated by Daft et al., capacity can be characterized as the
level of richness. Face-to-face delivery shows the highest media
richness when the equivocality (ambiguity) is high [75];
Underdressed documents, such as standard quantitative reports, are
preferred when the contents are easy to understand [76]. CAD tools
are more useful for detailed designs [51] than for conceptual
designs due to the high equivocality of early concept [76].
However, using CAD systems for idea generation may restrict
creative thinking and collaboration [32], [52]. Physical models
could be considered to use at all stage but this method is a time
and cost consuming process.
5. Future Work
More research need to be conducted on communication method through
sensation and audio input. For example, what is the richness of the
information when an invidual touches an object. A more quantifiable
way need to be devloped to meet the overall expectation of idea
generation and dissemniation in engineering design. In addition,
this aper only provides two examples when discussing the impact of
entropy with respect to probolibity. Systematic studies of a
collection of exampls will be generate a more robust design
process.
6. Acknowledgement
This research is funded in part by NSF NRI #1527148 and Penn
State’s Center for Online Innovation in Learning (COIL). Any
opinions, findings, or conclusions found in this paper are those of
the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
sponsors
7. Reference
[1] E. Atila and C. Jones Jesse, The engineering design process.
New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1996.
[2] M. Perttula and P. Sipilä, “The idea exposure paradigm in
design idea generation,” J. Eng. Des., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 93–102,
2007.
[3] C. E. Shannon and W. Weaver, “The mathematical theory of
communication,” 2002.
[4] C. E. Shannon, “A mathematical theory of communication,” ACM
SIGMOBILE Mob. Comput. Commun. Rev., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 3–55,
2001.
[5] D. K. Darnell, “Information theory: An approach to human
communication,” Approaches Hum. Commun., pp. 156–169, 1972.
[6] S. V. Kulkarni and N. Vargas-Hernandez, “Evaluation of idea
generation methods for conceptual design: effectiveness metrics and
design of experiments,” 2000.
[7] R. Van der Lugt, “How sketching can affect the idea generation
process in design group meetings,” Des. Stud., vol. 26, no. 2, pp.
101–122, 2005.
[8] A. B. VanGundy, Techniques of structured problem solving. Van
Nostrand Reinhold New York, 1988.
[9] B. Rohrbach, “Creative by rules—method 635, a new technique for
solving problems,” Absatzwirtschaft, vol. 12, pp. 73–75,
1969.
[10] J. J. Shah, N. O. E. VargasHernandez, J. D. Summers, and S.
Kulkarni, “Collaborative Sketching (CSketch)—An idea generation
technique for engineering design,” J. Creat. Behav., vol. 35, no.
3, pp. 168–198, 2001.
[11] J. S. Linsey, E. F. Clauss, T. Kurtoglu, J. T. Murphy, K. L.
Wood, and A. B. Markman, “An experimental study of group idea
generation techniques: understanding the roles of idea
representation and viewing methods,” J. Mech. Des., vol. 133, no.
3, p. 031008, 2011.
[12] R. Van Der Lugt, “Brainsketching and how it differs from
brainstorming,” Creat. Innov. Manag., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 43–54,
2002.
[13] M. Aiken, M. Vanjani, and J. Paolillo, “A comparison of two
electronic idea generation techniques,” Inf. Manage., vol. 30, no.
2, pp. 91–99, 1996.
[14] R. Ibrahim and F. P. Rahimian, “Comparison of CAD and manual
sketching tools for teaching architectural design,” Autom. Constr.,
vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 978–987, 2010.
[15] V. K. Viswanathan and J. S. Linsey, “Enhancing student
innovation: Physical models in the idea generation process,” in
Frontiers in Education Conference, 2009. FIE’09. 39th IEEE, 2009,
pp. 1–6.
[16] A. T. Purcell and J. S. Gero, “Drawings and the design
process: A review of protocol studies in design and other
disciplines and related research in cognitive psychology,” Des.
Stud., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 389–430, 1998.
[17] H. W. Rittel and M. M. Webber, “Dilemmas in a general theory
of planning,” Policy Sci., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 155–169, 1973.
[18] R. Buchanan, “Declaration by design: Rhetoric, argument, and
demonstration in design practice,” Des. Issues, pp. 4–22,
1985.
[19] A. Mabogunje and L. J. Leifer, “Noun phrases as surrogates for
measuring early phases of the mechanical design process,” in
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Design Theory
and Methodology, ASME, 1997.
[20] J. S. Linsey, M. G. Green, J. T. Murphy, K. L. Wood, and A. B.
Markman, “‘Collaborating To Success’: An Experimental Study of
Group Idea Generation Techniques,” in ASME 2005 International
Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and
Information in Engineering Conference, 2005, pp. 277–290.
[21] A. F. Osborn, Applied imagination. New York: Scribners’s,
1957. For, 1957.
[22] R. I. Sutton and A. Hargadon, “Brainstorming groups in
context: Effectiveness in a product design firm,” Adm. Sci. Q., pp.
685–718, 1996.
[23] M. Aiken, J. Krosp, A. Shirani, and J. Martin, “Electronic
brainstorming in small and large groups,” Inf. Manage., vol. 27,
no. 3, pp. 141–149, 1994.
[24] H.-C. Wang, S. F. Fussell, and L. D. Setlock, “Cultural
difference and adaptation of communication styles in
computer-mediated group brainstorming,” in Proceedings of the
SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2009, pp.
669–678.
[25] B. Mullen, C. Johnson, and E. Salas, “Productivity loss in
brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration,” Basic Appl.
Soc. Psychol., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 3–23, 1991.
[26] A. Dong, A. H. Hill, and A. M. Agogino, “Document analysis as
a means for predicting design team performance,” ASME J. Mech.
Des., 2004.
[27] M. A. Brandinnonte and W. Gerbino, “When Imagery Fails:
Effects of Verbal Recoding on Accessibility,” Stretching Imagin.
Represent. Transform. Ment. Imag., p. 31, 1996.
[28] E. Robbins and E. Cullinan, Why architects draw. MIT press,
1994.
[29] D. A. Schon, The reflective practitioner: How professionals
think in action, vol. 5126. Basic books, 1984.
[30] A. Banerji, M. Elmitt, and E. L. Ortega, Croquis de los
maestros: between lines: from doodles to composition. Escart Press,
1994.
[31] V. Goel, Sketches of thought. MIt Press, 1995.
[32] B. F. Robertson and D. F. Radcliffe, “Impact of CAD tools on
creative problem solving in engineering design,” Comput.-Aided
Des., vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 136–146, 2009.
[33] M. Suwa, J. Gero, and T. Purcell, “Unexpected discoveries: How
designers discover hidden features in sketches,” in Visual and
spatial reasoning in design, 1999, vol. 99.
[34] D. G. Ullman, S. Wood, and D. Craig, “The importance of
drawing in the mechanical design process,” Comput. Graph., vol. 14,
no. 2, pp. 263–274, 1990.
[35] K. Hanks, “&L. Belliston.(1980),” Rapid Viz New Method
Rapid Vis. Of.
[36] M. Kavakli, S. A. Scrivener, and L. J. Ball, “Structure in
idea sketching behaviour,” Des. Stud., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 485–517,
1998.
[37] A. McGown, G. Green, and P. A. Rodgers, “Visible ideas:
information patterns of conceptual sketch activity,” Des. Stud.,
vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 431–453, 1998.
[38] R. McKim, “Experiences in Visual Thinking, Wadsworth,” Inc
Belmont CA, 1980.
[39] A. Newell and H. A. Simon, Human problem solving, vol. 104.
Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1972.
[40] R. Birmingham, Understanding engineering design: context,
theory and practice. Prentice Hall PTR, 1997.
[41] J. H. Larkin and H. A. Simon, “Why a diagram is (sometimes)
worth ten thousand words,” Cogn. Sci., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 65–100,
1987.
[42] F. L. McKoy, N. Vargas-Hernández, J. D. Summers, and J. J.
Shah, “Influence of design representation on effectiveness of idea
generation,” in ASME IDETC Design Theory and Methodology
Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, Sept, 2001, pp. 9–12.
[43] N. Goodman, Languages of art: An approach to a theory of
symbols. Hackett publishing, 1968.
[44] M. Suwa and B. Tversky, “What do architects and students
perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis,” Des.
Stud., vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 385–403, 1997.
[45] M. Suwa, T. Purcell, and J. Gero, “Macroscopic analysis of
design processes based on a scheme for coding designers’ cognitive
actions,” Des. Stud., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 455–483, 1998.
[46] D. A. Schön, Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a
new design for teaching and learning in the professions.
Jossey-Bass, 1987.
[47] D. Vogel and J. Nunamaker, “Group decision support system
impact: Multi-methodological exploration,” Inf. Manage., vol. 18,
no. 1, pp. 15–28, 1990.
[48] W. Zhou, E. Simpson, and D. P. Domizi, “Google Docs in an
Out-of-Class Collaborative Writing Activity.,” Int. J. Teach.
Learn. High. Educ., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 359–375, 2012.
[49] J. A. Landay and B. A. Myers, “Interactive sketching for the
early stages of user interface design,” in Proceedings of the
SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 1995, pp.
43–50.
[50] A. Kramer, “Translucent patches—dissolving windows,” in
Proceedings of the 7th annual ACM symposium on User interface
software and technology, 1994, pp. 121–130.
[51] M. Tovey, S. Porter, and R. Newman, “Sketching, concept
development and automotive design,” Des. Stud., vol. 24, no. 2, pp.
135–153, 2003.
[52] E. Y.-L. Do, M. D. Gross, B. Neiman, and C. Zimring,
“Intentions in and relations among design drawings,” Des. Stud.,
vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 483–503, 2000.
[53] “CAD Design Software | Computer-Aided Design | Autodesk.”
[Online]. Available: http://www.autodesk.com/solutions/cad-design.
[Accessed: 10-Aug-2016].
[54] X. Ye, W. Peng, Z. Chen, and Y.-Y. Cai, “Today’s students,
tomorrow’s engineers: an industrial perspective on CAD education,”
Comput.-Aided Des., vol. 36, no. 14, pp. 1451–1460, 2004.
[55] A. Pipes, Computer-Aided Architectural Design Futures.
Butterworth-Heinemann, 2014.
[56] “Can You Take on New CAD Software Without Tanking
Productivity? | PTC.” [Online]. Available:
http://www.ptc.com/cad-software-blog/can-you-take-on-new-cad-software-without-tanking-productivity.
[Accessed: 10-Aug-2016].
[57] H. Dubberly, “ON MODELING Learning curves for design,”
interactions, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 13–16, 2008.
[58] “What is Interaction Design?,” The Interaction Design
Foundation. [Online]. Available:
https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/what-is-interaction-design.
[Accessed: 16-Jan-2017].
[59] J. D. Summers and J. J. Shah, “Mechanical engineering design
complexity metrics: size, coupling, and solvability,” J. Mech.
Des., vol. 132, no. 2, p. 021004, 2010.
[60] C. A. Cory, “Utilization of 2D, 3D, or 4D CAD in construction
communication documentation,” in Information Visualisation, 2001.
Proceedings. Fifth International Conference on, 2001, pp.
219–224.
[61] S. A. Scrivener, D. Harris, S. M. Clark, T. Rockoff, and M.
Smyth, “Designing at a distance via real-time designer-to-designer
interaction,” Des. Stud., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 261–282, 1993.
[62] D. G. Ullman and D. Herling, “Computer support for design team
decisions,” in AI System Support for Conceptual Design, Springer,
1996, pp. 349–361.
[63] K. Otto and K. Wood, “Product design: techniques in reverse
engineering and new product design,” Prentice-Hall, 2001.
[64] A. Römer, M. Pache, G. Weißhahn, U. Lindemann, and W. Hacker,
“Effort-saving product representations in design—results of a
questionnaire survey,” Des. Stud., vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 473–491,
2001.
[65] T. Kelly and J. Littman, “The art of innovation,” N. Y. Al
Random House, 2001.
[66] A. Ward, J. K. Liker, J. J. Cristiano, and D. K. Sobek, “The
second Toyota paradox: How delaying decisions can make better cars
faster,” Sloan Manage. Rev., vol. 36, no. 3, p. 43, 1995.
[67] A. Häggman, G. Tsai, C. Elsen, T. Honda, and M. C. Yang,
“Connections between the design tool, design attributes, and user
preferences in early stage design,” J. Mech. Des., vol. 137, no. 7,
p. 071408, 2015.
[68] M. Baxter, Product Design: Practical methods for the
systematic development of new products. CRC Press, 1995.
[69] B. T. Christensen and C. D. Schunn, “The relationship of
analogical distance to analogical function and preinventive
structure: The case of engineering design,” Mem. Cognit., vol. 35,
no. 1, pp. 29–38, 2007.
[70] B. T. Christensen and C. D. Schunn, “The role and impact of
mental simulation in design,” Appl. Cogn. Psychol., vol. 23, no. 3,
pp. 327–344, 2009.
[71] C. Cardoso, P. Badke-Schaub, and A. Luz, “Design Fixation on
Non-Verbal Stimuli: The Influence of Simple vs. Rich Pictorial
Information on Design Problem-Solving,” in ASME 2009 International
Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and
Information in Engineering Conference, 2009, pp. 995–1002.
[72] D. G. Jansson and S. M. Smith, “Design fixation,” Des. Stud.,
vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 3–11, 1991.
[73] R. Vidal, E. Mulet, and E. Gómez-Senent, “Effectiveness of the
means of expression in creative problem-solving in design groups,”
J. Eng. Des., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 285–298, 2004.
[74] S. Houde and C. Hill, “What do prototypes prototype,” Handb.
Hum.-Comput. Interact., vol. 2, pp. 367–381, 1997.
[75] R. L. Daft and R. H. Lengel, Information richness: a new
approach to manager information processing and organisational
design. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1984.
[76] R. L. Daft, R. H. Lengel, and L. K. Trevino, “Message
equivocality, media selection, and manager performance:
Implications for information systems,” MIS Q., pp. 355–366,
1987.
[77] T. Chen, Z. Zhu, A. Shamir, S.-M. Hu, and D. Cohen-Or,
“3-sweep: Extracting editable objects from a single photo,” ACM
Trans. Graph. TOG, vol. 32, no. 6, p. 195, 2013.
[78] P. B. Paulus and H.-C. Yang, “Idea generation in groups: A
basis for creativity in organizations,” Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis.
Process., vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 76–87, 2000.
[79] J. D. Antoszkiewicz, “Brainstorming: Experiences from two
thousand teams.,” Organ. Dev. J., 1992.
[80] R. Kraut, J. Galegher, and C. Edigo, “Intellectual teamwork:
Social and technological bases for cooperative work,” 1990.
[81] C. W. Steinfield and J. Fulk, “Task demands and managers’ use
of communication media: An information processing view,” in annual
meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago, 1986.
[82] E. C. Pielou, “The measurement of diversity in different types
of biological collections,” J. Theor. Biol., vol. 13, pp. 131–144,
1966.
[83] R. Ocker, J. Fjermestad, S. R. Hiltz, and K. Johnson, “Effects
of four modes of group communication on the outcomes of software
requirements determination,” J. Manag. Inf. Syst., vol. 15, no. 1,
pp. 99–118, 1998.
[84] R. L. Daft and R. H. Lengel, “Organizational information
requirements, media richness and structural design,” Manag. Sci.,
vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 554–571, 1986.
[85] G. Melnik and F. Maurer, “Direct verbal communication as a
catalyst of agile knowledge sharing,” in Agile Development
Conference, 2004, 2004, pp. 21–31.
[86] M. E. Balazs and D. C. Brown, “Design simplification by
analogical reasoning,” in From knowledge intensive cad to knowledge
intensive engineering, Springer, 2002, pp. 29–44.
[87] T. C. Lethbridge, J. Singer, and A. Forward, “How software
engineers use documentation: The state of the practice,” IEEE
Softw., vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 35–39, 2003.
[88] E. S. Ferguson, Engineering and the Mind’s Eye. MIT press,
1994.
[89] J. A. Rockwell, P. Witherell, R. Fernandes, I. Grosse, S.
Krishnamurty, and J. Wileden, “A web-based environment for
documentation and sharing of engineering design knowledge,” in ASME
2008 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and
Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, 2008, pp.
671–683.
[90] D. Dori and K. Tombre, “From engineering drawings to 3D CAD
models: are we ready now?,” Comput.-Aided Des., vol. 27, no. 4, pp.
243–254, 1995.
[91] C. Hand, “A survey of 3D interaction techniques,” in Computer
graphics forum, 1997, vol. 16, pp. 269–281.
[92] M. A. Rosenman and J. S. Gero, “Modelling multiple views of
design objects in a collaborative CAD environment,” Comput.-Aided
Des., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 193–205, 1996.
[93] L. Chen, Z. J. Song, and B. Liavas, “‘Exploration of A
Multi-User Collaborative Assembly Environment on the Internet: A
Case Study,” in Proceedings of the ASME Design Technical
Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering
Conference, 2001, pp. 9–12.
[94] L. Chen, Z. Song, and B. Liavas, “Master assembly model for
real-time multi-user collaborative assembly modeling on the
internet,” in ASME 2002 International Design Engineering Technical
Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering
Conference, 2002, pp. 373–379.
[95] A. Pang and C. Wittenbrink, “Collaborative 3 D visualization
with CSpray,” IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 32–41,
1997.
[96] “Webscope - Strategic Digital Solutions.” [Online]. Available:
http://www.webscope.com/. [Accessed: 03-Feb-2017].
[97] “Collaboration For Revit | BIM Cloud Collaboration Software |
Autodesk.” [Online]. Available:
http://www.autodesk.com/products/collaboration-for-revit/overview.
[Accessed: 03-Feb-2017].
[98] L. Chen, Z. Song, and L. Feng, “Internet-enabled real-time
collaborative assembly modeling via an e-Assembly system: status
and promise,” Comput.-Aided Des., vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 835–847,
2004.
[99] W. D. Li, W. F. Lu, J. Y. Fuh, and Y. S. Wong, “Collaborative
computer-aided design—research and development status,”
Comput.-Aided Des., vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 931–940, 2005.
[100] M. Li, S. Gao, J. Li, and Y. Yang, “An approach to supporting
synchronized collaborative design within heterogeneous CAD
systems,” in ASME 2004 International Design Engineering Technical
Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering
Conference, 2004, pp. 511–519.
[101] K. Ramani, A. Agrawal, M. Babu, and C. Hoffmann, “CADDAC:
Multi-client collaborative shape design system with server-based
geometry kernel,” J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng. ASME, vol. 3, no. 2,
pp. 170–173, 2003.
[102] C. D. Cera, I. Braude, I. Comer, T. Kim, J. Han, and W. C.
Regli, “Hierarchical role-based viewing for secure collaborative
CAD,” in ASME 2003 International Design Engineering Technical
Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering
Conference, 2003, pp. 965–974.
[103] J. Rekimoto and K. Nagao, “The world through the computer:
Computer augmented interaction with real world environments,” in
Proceedings of the 8th annual ACM symposium on User interface and
software technology, 1995, pp. 29–36.
[104] I. E. Sutherland, “A head-mounted three dimensional display,”
in Proceedings of the December 9-11, 1968, fall joint computer
conference, part I, 1968, pp. 757–764.
[105] R. T. Azuma, “A survey of augmented reality,” Presence
Teleoperators Virtual Environ., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 355–385,
1997.
[106] “Oculus.” [Online]. Available: https://www.oculus.com/.
[Accessed: 06-Jan-2017].
[107] “VIVETM | Discover Virtual Reality Beyond Imagination.”
[Online]. Available: https://www.vive.com/us/. [Accessed:
06-Jan-2017].
[108] “How Virtual Reality Will Change Storytelling and Marketing
in the Next Decade.” [Online]. Available:
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/287018. [Accessed:
06-Jan-2017].
[109] H. Perkunder, J. H. Israel, and M. Alexa, “Shape modeling
with sketched feature lines in immersive 3D environments,” in
Proceedings of the Seventh Sketch-Based Interfaces and Modeling
Symposium, 2010, pp. 127–134.
[110] R. Stark, J. H. Israel, and T. Wöhler, “Towards hybrid
modelling environments—Merging desktop-CAD and virtual
reality-technologies,” CIRP Ann.-Manuf. Technol., vol. 59, no. 1,
pp. 179–182, 2010.
[111] E. Wiese, J. H. Israel, C. Zöllner, A. E. Pohlmeyer, and R.
Stark, “The potential of immersive 3D-sketching environments for
design problem-solving,” in Tagungsband 13th International
Conference on Human-Computer Interaction HCI 2009, 2009, pp.
485–489.
[112] J. H. Israel, E. Wiese, M. Mateescu, C. Zöllner, and R.
Stark, “Investigating three-dimensional sketching for early
conceptual design—Results from expert discussions and user
studies,” Comput. Graph., vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 462–473, 2009.
[113] A. Y. C. Nee, S. K. Ong, G. Chryssolouris, and D. Mourtzis,
“Augmented reality applications in design and manufacturing,” CIRP
Ann.-Manuf. Technol., vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 657–679, 2012.
[114] R. H. Stelzer, “Virtual reality based engineering
collaboration as part of the product lifecycle management,” in ASME
2010 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and
Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, 2010, pp.
1327–1334.
[115] B. Mason, “Virtual reality raises real risk of motion
sickness,” Science News, 11-Jan-2017. [Online]. Available:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/virtual-reality-raises-real-risk-motion-sickness.
[Accessed: 29-Jan-2017].
[116] J. Fründ, J. Gausemeier, C. Matysczok, and R. Radkowski,
“Using augmented reality technology to support the automobile
development,” in International Conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work in Design, 2004, pp. 289–298.
[117] S. K. Ong and Y. Shen, “A mixed reality environment for
collaborative product design and development,” CIRP Ann.-Manuf.
Technol., vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 139–142, 2009.
[118] L. H. Loong, English: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong trying
out a VR headset. 2016.
[119] “WordNet Search - 3.1.” [Online]. Available:
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=MOUSE&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o8=1&o1=1&o7=&o5=&o9=&o6=&o3=&o4=&h=.
[Accessed: 10-Feb-2017].
[120] “Microsoft Sculpt Mobile Mouse | Microsoft Accessories.”
[Online]. Available:
https://www.microsoft.com/accessories/en-nz/products/mice/sculpt-mobile-mouse/43u-00005?part=43U-00005.
[Accessed: 10-Feb-2017].
[121] S. Freeman, “Mice SING to each other when they are courting,”
mirror, 15-Sep-2015. [Online]. Available:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/mice-girls-rodents-sing-each-6451086.
[Accessed: 10-Feb-2017].
[122] “mouse - Recent models - GrabCAD - CAD Library.” [Online].
Available:
https://grabcad.com/library?utf8=%E2%9C%93&query=mouse.
[Accessed: 10-Feb-2017].
[123] “Elephant on Halloween PART 2 - SOLIDWORKS - 3D CAD model -
GrabCAD.” [Online]. Available:
https://grabcad.com/library/elephant-on-halloween-part-2-1.
[Accessed: 10-Feb-2017].
[124] “MOUSE (Wireless) - CATIA - 3D CAD model - GrabCAD.”
[Online]. Available: https://grabcad.com/library/mouse-wireless-1.
[Accessed: 10-Feb-2017].
[125] “mouse - Google Search.” [Online]. Available:
https://www.google.com/search?q=mouse&biw=1102&bih=880&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiN1MWMx4TSAhVqJ8AKHfyHD7EQ_AUIBigB#imgrc=_.
[Accessed: 10-Feb-2017].
[126] H. A. Kivett, “Free-hand sketching: A lost art?,” J. Prof.
Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., vol. 124, no. 3, pp. 60–64, 1998.
[127] D. J. Love, R. W. Heath, V. K. Lau, D. Gesbert, B. D. Rao,
and M. Andrews, “An overview of limited feedback in wireless
communication systems,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 26, no. 8,
2008.
[128] G. Fischer, K. Nakakoji, J. Ostwald, G. Stahl, and T. Sumner,
“Embedding critics in design environments,” Knowl. Eng. Rev., vol.
8, no. 04, pp. 285–307, 1993.
[129] A. I. Shirani, M. H. Tafti, and J. F. Affisco, “Task and
technology fit: a comparison of two technologies for synchronous
and asynchronous group communication,” Inf. Manage., vol. 36, no.
3, pp. 139–150, 1999.
[130] A. R. Dennis and J. S. Valacich, “Rethinking media richness:
Towards a theory of media synchronicity,” in Systems Sciences,
1999. HICSS-32. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International
Conference on, 1999, p. 10 pp.
[131] I. F. Press, English: Touch kiosks aren’t new, but the
Multi-Touch Table Kiosk, which was introduced by Zoom Digital
Signage last year, supports six simultaneous touches, allowing for
multiple people to gather around and collaborate. 2013.
Idea Generation
Verba/Textual Expressions