TY - JOUR
T1 - Usability tests of ideation flexibility tools with engineering design practitioners
AU - McKilligan, Seda
AU - Jablokow, Kathryn W.
AU - Daly, Shanna R.
AU - Silk, Eli M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2018, © 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2018/10/2
Y1 - 2018/10/2
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85019695990&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85019695990&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/15710882.2017.1325909
DO - 10.1080/15710882.2017.1325909
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85019695990
SN - 1571-0882
VL - 14
SP - 293
EP - 313
JO - CoDesign
JF - CoDesign
IS - 4
ER -