Seda McKilligan

Incremental to radical ideas: paradigm-relatedness metrics for investigating ideation creativity and diversity

Abstract Creativity and diversity are key components of success in idea generation, but each includes many dimensions. Paradigm-relatedness is an indicator of the style of creativity and diversity that has been overlooked often in assessing ideation. The goals for this study were to synthesize the literature on paradigm-relatedness, and develop and test alternative approaches for operationalizing paradigm-relatedness in ideation. The synthesis of the literature focused on reviewing both paradigm-relatedness theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches. Then, two alternative paradigm-relatedness metric approaches—category-based and component-based—were developed. Finally, ideation data was collected and coded to evaluate the reliability, ease of use, and potential applications of each approach. The category-based approach was a more reliable and faster way to code paradigm-relatedness, and so it may be more suited for research or evaluation at scale. In contrast, the component-based approach provided more explicit information on all aspects of paradigm-relatedness, but was more challenging to code reliably and more time-consuming. The component-based approach may be more suited to guiding smaller teams or individual designers in achieving paradigm-relatedness creativity and diversity. Neither approach was found to be universally ideal, and so consideration of the trade-offs is important in deciding which is most appropriate in a given situation.

Usability tests of ideation flexibility tools with engineering design practitioners

Abstract In an engineering context, ideation flexibility is defined as an engineer’s ability to move between his or her preferred and non-preferred ways of generating ideas as required by the current task. In this study, the usability of three specific tools for enhancing the ideation flexibility of engineers—the Problem Framing Guide, Design Heuristics and Cognitive Style-Based Teaming—was investigated with design practitioners in a real-world setting. The performance and perceptions of 16 professionals were analysed as they explored design problems and solutions using these tools in a 3-h workshop. Study outcomes show that all three tools have value in design ideation, with room for improvement in terms of structured instructions for their use. Additionally, results suggest that cognitive style does not influence an individual’s performance with or perceptions of these tools, which supports their value and validity for a general practitioner audience.