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