Idea generation has frequently been explored in design education as an exercise of students’ “innate” creativity, and few tools or techniques are offered to scaffold ideation ability. As students develop their design skills, we expect them to demonstrate increasing ideation flexibility—a cognitive and social ability to see a problem from multiple perspectives, and to create more varied concepts within the problem space. In this study, we introduced three tools— functional decomposition, Design Heuristics, and affinity diagramming—to aid students’ ideation in a three-hour workshop. Participants included 20 students in a junior industrial design studio arranged in five pre-existing teams. These participants first decomposed the functions within an existing set of concepts they had generated, then selected a specific function and generated additional concepts using the Design Heuristics ideation method. Finally, teams organized these concepts using affinity diagramming to find patterns and additional concepts. Our findings suggest that this process encouraged students to try multiple ways of examining the existing problem space, resulting in a broadened set of final concepts. More striking, the instructional activities served to foreground differences in team members’ understanding of the problem they were addressing, fostering alignment of their problem statement and aiding in its further development.

1. What Problem
Are We Solving?
ENCOURAGING IDEA GENERATION & EFFECTIVE TEAM COMMUNICATION
Colin M. Gray1
, Seda Yilmaz1
, Shanna R. Daly2
,
Colleen M. Seifert2
, & Richard Gonzalez2
1
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
2
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

2. COMMUNICATION,
DIALOGUE, &
NEGOTIATION
[Cross, 2007; Dorst, 2015; Goel & Pirolli, 1989; Paton & Dorst, 2011; Schön, 1990]

3. COMMUNICATION,
DIALOGUE, &
NEGOTIATION
of a problem frame
[Cross & Cross, 1996; Hey, Joyce, & Beckman, 2007; Stumpf & McDonnell, 2002]

4. COMMUNICATION,
DIALOGUE, &
NEGOTIATION
of a desiderata
[Nelson & Stolterman, 2012]

5. COMMUNICATION,
DIALOGUE, &
NEGOTIATION
through dialectic of
problem & solution
[Dorst & Cross, 2001; Maher & Tang, 2003]

6. SUPPORTING DESIGN METHODS
FUNCTIONAL
DECOMPOSITION
DESIGN
HEURISTICS
AFFINITY
DIAGRAMMING
[van Eyk, 2011; Umeda & Tomiyama, 1997] [Christian et al., 2012; Daly et al., 2012; Yilmaz &
Seifert, 2010; Yilmaz et al., 2010, 2014]
[Hanington & Martin, 2012; Kawakita, 1975]

7. DESIGN HEURISTICS

8. DESIGN HEURISTICS
Provides prompts to help
designers generate
alternatives that vary in
nature, discouraging fixation
and encouraging divergent
patterns of thinking
[Yilmaz, Daly, Seifert, & Gonzalez, 2011;
Yilmaz, Seifert, & Gonzalez, 2010]
Derived from empirical
evidence of industrial and
engineering designs
[Daly et al., 2012; Yilmaz, Christian, Daly,
Seifert, & Gonzalez, 2012;
Yilmaz & Seifert, 2010]
Validated through a range
of product analysis, case
studies, and protocol
analyses, in both
educational and
professional contexts
[e.g., Yilmaz & Seifert, 2009; Yilmaz et al.,
2011; Yilmaz et al., 2010; Yilmaz et al.,
2013; Yilmaz, Daly, Christian, Seifert, &
Gonzalez, 2014]

9. METHOD
• 20 junior-level undergraduate industrial design students
• Previously organized into teams of 4-5 students
• Three-hour class session in the fourth week of the semester
• Case analysis of participants and teams

10. DESIGN PROJECT
“
”
Develop an innovative
kitchen product related
to rising food costs, the
future of food, or the
unique needs of
millennials

11. DESIGN PROJECT
“
”
Develop an innovative
kitchen product related
to rising food costs, the
future of food, or the
unique needs of
millennials
INDIVIDUAL LADDERED
PROBLEM STATEMENTS
GROUP PROBLEM
STATEMENT
15 MARKER COMPS
FIRST FOUR WEEKS

12. DESIGN PROJECT
INDIVIDUAL LADDERED
PROBLEM STATEMENTS
GROUP PROBLEM
STATEMENT
15 MARKER COMPS
FIRST FOUR WEEKS
INDIVIDUAL
FUNCTIONAL
DECOMPOSITION
IDEATION, ITERATION,
RECOMPOSITION
60 MINUTES

13. DESIGN PROJECT
INDIVIDUAL LADDERED
PROBLEM STATEMENTS
GROUP PROBLEM
STATEMENT
15 MARKER COMPS
FIRST FOUR WEEKS
INDIVIDUAL
FUNCTIONAL
DECOMPOSITION
IDEATION, ITERATION,
RECOMPOSITION
60 MINUTES
TEAM
AFFINITY
DIAGRAMMING
ITERATION
60 MINUTES

14. Team
Initial Team
Problem
Statement
Individual Functions
After Functional
Decomposition
Team Concept Clusters
After Affinity Diagramming
Team End-of-
Semester Problem
Statement
1
System-based
solution to improve
upon portion control,
food preservation, &
waste
Compartmentalization
Ease of Access
Space saving
[N/A]
Accessibility (n=4)
Adjustable Dividers (n=5)
Exterior Adjustability/Space Saving (n=8)
Interior Adjustability (n=12)
How can we create a
system that
discourages
millennials from
throwing away food
at home?
5
Develop a system,
which will re-invent
the perception of 'on
the go eating' that
conforms to the
lifestyles & eating
habits of health-
conscious
millennials.
Give user experience
Emotional
Cleaning
Versatility
Customizable
Container (n=3); Lid (n=6); Other (n=4)
Flexible
Cleaning Mechanisms (n=5); Storage Mechanisms
(n=7)
Experience
Consumption (n=6); Storage (n=6)
Promote an
experience that
accommodates
eating habits which
reflect the diverse
lifestyles of the out
and about millennial.

15. TEAM 1 TEAM 5

16. TEAM 1 TEAM 5

17. TEAM 1
Expand or collapse
32
Allow the volume or area of the product or its parts to get larger or smaller.
Consider the use of fluids, inflatables, flexible materials, and complex joints.
This can improve portability and storage options, and allow adjustability.
© Design Heuristics, LLC 2012

18. TEAM 1
Apply existing
mechanism in new way 13
Consider whether existing products or their components can fulfill the desired
function.This can facilitate reuse of existing products, make the design process
more efficient, and expand the pool of options.
© Design Heuristics, LLC 2012

19. TEAM 5
Provide sensory
feedback 50
Return perceptual (e.g., tactile, aural, visual) feedback to the user to guide use.
This can reduce errors, confirm actions, and inform the user of the product’s
function.
© Design Heuristics, LLC 2012
TEAM 1

20. Cluster Name
(# using Design Heuristics) P17 P18 P19 P20 TOTAL
Flexible
Storage mechanisms (n=5) 1 3 2 1 7
Cleaning mechanisms (n=5) 5 5
Customizable
Container (n=2) 1 2 3
Lid (n=6) 2 2 2 6
Other (n=4) 1 2 1 4
Experience
Consumption (n=5) 6 6
Storage (n=5) 3 1 1 1 6
Unassigned (n=6) 4 1 1 3 9
Cluster Name
(# using Design Heuristics) P1 P2 P3 P4 TOTAL
Space saving/ Exterior
adjustability (n=6)
3 1 2 2 8
Interior adjustability (n=10) 7 2 1 12
Adjustable dividers (n=4) 5 5
Accessibility (n=4) 1 3 4
Unassigned (n=4) 1 4 1 3 9
TEAM 1 TEAM 5

21. TEAM 1 TEAM 5

22. ALIGNMENT OF PROBLEM FRAMES
TEAM 1 TEAM 5
Development of
isolated clusters
Divergence provoked
discussion about lack of
team focus
MISALIGNED
Development of
complementary clusters
Divergence reinforced
focus through differing
perspectives
ALIGNED

23. IDEA GENERATION
THAT STIMULATES A
DIALECTIC MOVEMENT
BETWEEN DIVERGENCE &
CONVERGENCE

24. PROBLEM
SPACE
INITIAL PROBLEM
FRAMING
FUNCTIONAL
DECOMPOSITION
AFFINITY
DIAGRAMMING
CONCEPT
GENERATION
(TEAM)
CONCEPT
GENERATION
(TEAM)
CONCEPT
GENERATION
(INDIVIDUAL)
DESIGN
HEURISTICS
DIALECTIC
OF DIVERGENCE
& CONVERGENCE

25. Thank You
COLINGRAY.ME
DESIGNHEURISTICS.COM
This research is funded by the National Science Foundation, Division of Undergraduate
Education, Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics (TUES Type II) Grants # 1323251 and #1322552.