Content uploaded by Chris Snider
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Chris Snider
Content may be subject to copyright.
The appearance of creative behaviour in later stage design processes
Chris M. Snider*, Elies Dekoninck and Steve Culley
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bath, Bath, UK, BA2 7AY
Email: C.M.Snider @bath.ac.uk
Tel: +44(0)1225386131
Published in the International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation
Available online: 30
th
July 2013
DOI: 10.1080/21650349.2013.819607
Abstract:
Creativity is widely seen as an important subject in the study of the engineering design
process. Through analysis using a previously presented framework and coding scheme,
this paper presents two studies on creative designer behaviour within later design stages.
Through the studies, one being longitudinal and the other a laboratory experiment, two
creative approaches have been identified based on whether designers are more often
creative when developing the knowledge and variables available for the design, or the
design output itself. This individual difference correlates significantly with the
designers’ creative style as measured by an independent creative style test. This data
demonstrates the variation in designer behaviour that appears even when completing
identical tasks. By understanding the creative behaviour and approaches followed by
designers, it will be possible to develop specific and particularly appropriate methods of
designer support, dependent on the stage of the design process and particular approach
of the designer.
Keywords: creativity; design; behaviour; embodiment; detail
The appearance of creative behaviour in later stage design processes
1. Introduction
Creativity is an important subject of study within design, as can be seen through the
wide body of literature within fields such as architecture (Akin & Akin, 1996),
computer science (Brown, 2010), human-computer interaction (Shneiderman et al.,
2006) and engineering design (Howard, Culley, & Dekoninck, 2008). Typically, a
creative product is defined as novel within the context of its field or market and suitable
as a solution to the presented problem, through terms such as novelty and
appropriateness (Chakrabarti, 2006; Howard et al., 2008; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999).
It is very important when studying creativity to consider not only the creative
product that forms the design solution, but also to consider the other three elements
contributing to creativity as proposed by Rhodes (1961); the person who is being
creative (Feist & Barron, 2003), the process that they are following (Cross, 2004a) and
the environment in which they are working (referred to as the creative “press”)
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1999; Lubart, 1999), shown in Figure 1.
Much valuable work has been undertaken on the subject of creative products
and their identification (Sarkar & Chakrabarti, 2011; Shah, Smith, & Vargas-
Hernandez, 2003), however when considering creativity research, the other elements
must also be considered. This is the contextual framework for the work presented in
this paper. This paper will analyse the approaches that designers choose to employ
throughout their design process as they create a product, with an aim of identifying
commonalities and enhancing understanding of creative approaches and typical patterns
of behaviour within design process stages. In this way, the pillars of the creative
person, creative process and creative product are considered. Although an important
subject for creativity research, consideration of such in the context of the creative press
is considered beyond the current scope of this work, and will be the focus of future
research.
Figure 1: The structure of the four pillars of creativity; Rhodes (1961), adapted from Samuel et
al. (2011)
The next contextual setting is the timing. Whilst a significant body of work has
focused on creativity within early and more open stages, it has been shown that many
design processes focus on incremental change (C. Eckert, Stacey, Wyatt, & Garthwaite,
2012), adaptive change, or variant design (Pahl & Beitz, 1984). These are often
considered to take place in the later and more detailed stages of design (Howard et al.,
2008). The increased levels of constraint (Howard, Nair, Culley, & Dekoninck, 2011;
McGinnis & Ullman, 1990), and the higher impact of change within later design stages
(C Eckert, Clarkson, & Zanker, 2004), make this a very important and difficult area for
designers. Thus the study of the design process and creative process within these later
stages represent an important specific design situation, which is currently under-
researched.
It is the purpose of this paper to present the results from two studies into the
individual creative approaches employed by designers within the later stages of the
engineering design process, their behaviour, and the types of task that they complete.
Through comparison of the results from these two studies, which demonstrate many
methodological differences, the paper identifies significant commonalities in designer
behaviour, allowing the development of understanding of creative approaches employed
by designers within later design stages. As part of this research it was necessary to
establish a consistent research framework and associated coding scheme. This underpins
the methodology. These are described in some detail in the next two sections and use
two sets of data, drawn from the analysis of logbooks and then some experimental
work. By considering and analysing both sets of results in tandem, it is possible to see
the appearance of creative approaches that appear within later stage design.
Person
Process
Press
Product
The critical underpinning research elements, namely the coding scheme and
methodology, are described in detail in the next sections.
2. The Research Framework and Coding Scheme
The research within this paper has been completed through the use of a framework and
coding scheme designed specifically to identify different types of creative task within
individual designer processes (Snider, Culley, & Dekoninck, 2013). Through
highlighting the importance and role of individual tasks completed by the designer, the
framework and coding scheme are presented here in order to show how the subsequent
research is enabled. This work aims to develop understanding of creative behaviour
through a quantitative study of the patterns seen in the task types completed, and
specifically in the behaviour of designers completing typical tasks within later design
stages. Quantitative studies are widely used (Blessing & Chakrabarti, 2009) and have
produced much interesting and valuable work within the field of design research (e.g.
(Ahmed, Wallace, & Blessing, 2003; Atman, Chimka, Bursic, & Nachtmann, 1999;
Christiaans & Venselaar, 2005; Yilmaz & Seifert, 2011)). It is through the degree to
which certain creative approaches appear in the context of the types of task that are
completed and the design situation and stage that this work aims to gain understanding
of typical creative approaches, with an eventual goal within further work of improving
methods of designer support.
2.1 Types of task
Tasks within this work are defined as equivalent to actions within Activity Theory
(Kaptelinin, Kuutti, & Bannon, 1995); as discrete elements of the designers’ individual
process with a specific goal. At a higher level, through a series of tasks the designer
will complete activities, defined as a discrete element of the design process itself with a
specific goal. By classifying the variation in tasks that different designers use to
complete activities, the framework aims to identify the differing approaches used by
designers to complete identical goals. Approach within this work is defined as the
sequence of tasks performed by designers, to complete a single or series of design
activities.
Based on the work of Gero (2000) and Dym (1994), the framework proposes
that all tasks completed by designers can be classified as either concerning the
knowledge and variables present for the design to occur (termed information focused
tasks), or as concerning how that knowledge and those variables can be applied and
used within the design (termed application focused tasks).
Both information focused and application focused tasks can be carried out in a
non-creative or creative manner. This gives four different types of task in total; two of
which are non-creative, and two of which are creative.
As according to the definition above, the sequence of tasks completed by a
designer to progress through design activities indicates their approach. Different
patterns or predominant types of task in the activities of different designers then indicate
different approaches. As such, a significant predominance in any of the four types of
task indicates a different approach. Should a designer be more often creative when
completing information focused tasks (termed astute tasks), they are classed as
following a predominantly astute approach; should a designer be more often creative
when completing application focused tasks (termed effectuating tasks), they are classed
as following a predominantly effectuating approach. The existence of these two
approaches is evidenced in previous work (Snider, Cash, Dekoninck, & Culley, 2012;
Snider et al., 2013), and is further supported within this paper. When a designer is more
often non-creative when completing information focussed tasks (termed regular tasks)
or application focussed tasks (termed standard tasks), their approach is referred to as
predominantly regular or standard respectively.
The terms astute, effectuating, regular and standard are proposed for use in this
framework and coding scheme to provide distinction between different types of task and
different approaches, and are not extracted from literature. These terms, in relation to
their creative properties and task focus, are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: The four task types, defined through their focus and creativity
Non-creative
Creative
Information focus
“Regular”
“Astute”
Application focus
“Standard”
“Effectuating”
As example, an astute approach will primarily entail astute tasks such as the
identification or creation of new knowledge or variables that can be used for design
(such as a new material or manufacture process); an effectuating approach will
primarily entail effectuating tasks such as the use of current knowledge or variables in a
new way (such as reducing the number of parts used in a sub-system). A regular
approach will primarily entail the gathering of knowledge regarding the variables that
are already present (such as clarification of previously used material properties), and a
standard approach will primarily entail the use of current knowledge and variables in a
known way (such as configuration of a layout based on past iterations). It is therefore
the summation of types of task that indicate the predominant approach that the designer
has chosen to take.
2.2 Expansion as an indicator of creative tasks
Within this work, whether a task is completed in a non-creative or creative manner is
judged through whether the task contains evidence of expansion, a term illustrated in
Figure 2. This term has been developed from literature, as described below, and forms
part of the coding scheme for experimental work.
Figure 2: Expansion and restraint as terms describing non-creative and creative
Expansion refers to the active process applied by the designer of attempting to
uncover new options for their design process. Within the context of information and
application focused tasks, this manifests in the attempt to identify new and appropriate
knowledge or variables that can be used for information; and the attempt to identify new
and appropriate ways of applying the current knowledge or variables for application. In
this sense, expansion is characterised by the active attempt to produce the option for a
novel and highly appropriate product to be produced, mirroring the accepted definitions
of creative products (Howard et al., 2008; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). Relating to the
classical view of Guilford (1956), expansion relates to creativity both in the divergent
and convergent stages of the process. While in divergence (when exploring the design
space and identifying alternatives) creative behaviour is logical; however, convergence
can also be creative (Cropley, 2006) through the use of alternative combinations of parts
Expand
Diverge
Converge
Use new part combinations
Use new technologies
Use new products
Look for alternative products
Look for new technologies
Look at other domains
Promote a creative result
Indicative of a creative
process
Restrain
Promote non-creative result
Indicative of a non-creative
process
Well-defined
schema
Do not explore the design space
Do not integrate new technologies
Do not integrate new products
and systems, or evaluation through criteria such as functionality beyond that originally
specified.
As discussed in much research, the creative behaviour of any designer is in no
small part dependent on their personality, training and experience (Christiaans &
Venselaar, 2005; Feist, 1999; J. R. Hayes, 1989). The design approaches taken by
designers and identified within this work are considered a result of this; ultimately the
specific creative behaviour of each designer stems from factors such as their
background and personality.
It should be noted that this work places a distinction between the completion of
a creative process, and the production of a final creative output. It is thought that while
producing a creative output will require the completion of creative tasks; expansion and
the completion of creative tasks do not require or guarantee the production of a creative
output. For example, should a non-creative solution be of higher feasibility or lower
cost, it is possible that they will be chosen over a creative alternative. This work does
not then look only at the creativity of the output for indication that a creative process
has taken place, studying instead at the tasks completed by designers and whether they
were completed in a creative manner.
2.3 The framework for research
This research then uses the framework illustrated in Figure 3, in order to code tasks
completed by designers throughout their design process.
Coding of tasks occurs using a scheme presented in detail in previous work
(Snider et al., 2013) and briefly summarised here. First, individual tasks are identified
according to the MOKA methodology (Stokes, 2001), based on the transformation of
input and output entities within. Each task is then judged as either non-creative or
creative, based on evidence of expansion (Section 2.2). By analysing the entities
present, each task is classified as either focusing on information or focusing on
application. An information focused task relates to the development of knowledge and
variables available for the design, while an application focused task relates to the way
in which knowledge or variables are applied to the design (generally in terms of the
design output at its current state).
This process gives a full breakdown of the tasks completed by each designer;
whether they are non-creative or creative, and whether they are of information or
application focus. Hence creative information focused tasks (astute tasks) and creative
application focused tasks (effectuating tasks) can be identified, and the approach of the
designers can be characterised.
Within the scheme, it is the predominance of either astute or effectuating tasks
over the other that characterises the designers’ approaches. Should a large majority in
either appear, it signifies a predominant approach taken by the designer. Variation in
approach between designers then signifies whether their creative behaviour is a result of
the projects being completed, or a result of an inherent preference or style of the
designer themselves. Further, correlation of these approaches with external measures of
creative style provides evidence of validity.
It should be noted that the predominance of one approach over another is
variable; depending on the proportions of astute and effectuating tasks that appear, the
designers will be characterised as having a stronger or weaker preference for one
approach over the other. A two-dimensional spectrum such as this has been used for the
characterisation of creative style in other work (see M. Kirton, 1976).
Figure 3: The framework for analysis
2.4 Classifying data for analysis
Analysis with this framework primarily occurs by classifying tasks as above. However,
an alternative method is thought to produce useful results. Information and application
focused tasks as described classify by output – whether the task is producing developed
knowledge or variables (information focused), or producing a design using them
(application focused). As the coding scheme methodology classifies the focus of both
the input and the output of each task (as according to the MOKA methodology), it is
also possible to classify tasks by whether focus remains constant throughout the task, or
Identification of
individual tasks
Non-
creative
(Restrain)
Creative
(Expansive)
Outcome
Type of Task
Information
Application
Information
Application
Regular
Standard
Astute
Effectuating
Approach Name
shifts from one area to the other.
Should focus remain constant throughout the task, the designer is solely
attempting to develop the knowledge or variables within the design (if information
focused), or is solely developing the design itself (if application focused). This is
referred to in this work as a within entity task. Should focus at the offset of a task be on
the development of knowledge or variables, and at the end be on how they can be
applied to the design (information focus to application focus); or at the offset be on the
development of the design itself and at the end be on how the design informs the
knowledge and variables present (application focus to information focus); then the task
is referred to as a cross entity task. The term entity is used here in reference to the
vocabulary used in the MOKA methodology. This framework is shown in Figure 4.
Examples of a within entity task could be the clarification of material properties
(information focus), or the dimensioning of non-critical components (application focus).
Examples of a cross entity task could be re-configuration of a component (application
output) based on additional manufacture requirements (information input); or the re-
assessment of specifications values (information output) following a prototyping stage
(application input).
Figure 4: Identification of types of entity transformation
When coding, tasks are identified and classified directly by identifying entities
within the data. It is for the coder to decide whether the appearance of an individual
entity is a task input or task output and the type of transition between; a latent pattern
data coding process (Potter & Levine Donnerstein, 1999). Every task is therefore
evidence based within the data, identified sequentially and directly according to their
input and output in the context of the design problem and stage of the design process.
Input/Output
of same type
Input/Output
of different
type
Entity
transformation
Type of Task
Information
Application
Information
Application
Within entity
Within entity
Cross entity
Cross entity
Transformation
type
Identification of
individual tasks
Granularity of tasks within the data is defined by the entities present, it is a requirement
of the scheme that every entity is coded as either part of a task input or output and as
such tasks are identified according to the highest level of detail present. Although
further decomposition of tasks is possible (similar to the decomposition of actions to the
level of cognitive processes within Activity Theory (Kaptelinin et al., 1995)) this is
considered future work.
2.5 Definition of the stages of design
Following the work of Howard et al. (2009), this work understands that a complete
design process as presented by many processes models (Cross, 2000; Pahl & Beitz,
1984; Pugh, 1990) can occur individually on any system, sub-system or component
within a design, as part of a much larger design process. It is therefore important that
definition of design stages is not considered as only chronological (where prior to one
point all tasks belong to a different stage as after), or only hierarchical (where design of
higher level systems is considered early stage while design of detailed components is
considered later stage). This work defines design stages based on the types of activities
taking place, similar to Howard (2008), Gero (1990; 2004) and Duffey and Dixon
(1990), as in Table 2. According to Gero and Kannengiesser (2004), the design process
begins with a process of developing function and knowledge in order to formulate
expected system behaviour. Within this work, these are primarily considered concept
tasks. Following, actual system behaviour is synthesised from the developed solution
principle, and compared to the expected behaviour. These are primarily embodiment
tasks as defined within this work. Once this is complete the system structure is finalised
and documented, primarily detail tasks within this work.
Table 2: Definition of design processes stages
Design Stage
Activity Definition
Analysis
Determine the required and desired functions of the system, for it
to complete its purpose.
Concept
Conceive the system functions in detail through preliminary
description of system behaviour.
Embodiment
Design detailed system behaviour through preliminary description
of system structure.
Detail
Design and finalise system structure, and all other concerned
aspects.
Typically, research into creativity has occurred in a general sense (for example,
(Dorst & Cross, 2001; Gero, 1996)) or in the context of the earlier design stages (for
example, (Nguyen & Shanks, 2009; Shai, Reich, & Rubin, 2009)). The focus of this
work is on the less-researched stages defined here as embodiment and detail, and
henceforth referred to as later stages.
Thus, in this work, later stage tasks are defined as those in which focus lies on
developing the detailed behaviour of a system or sub-system through the development
of system structure, and the subsequent development and finalisation of components. In
all such cases detailed functional structures of the system and sub-systems have been
decided, as have primary system and sub-system behaviours. At these stages tasks do
not typically focus on radical or original design problems; but design problems within
the bounds of an already developed design space. However, this work argues that
creative behaviour does still occur at these stages, both within the typical forms of
design problem and in the form of original or radical design when designers are capable
of performing such within a developed design space, or the additional benefits and
design situation warrant re-development of previous design decisions.
3. Methodology
Using this framework, the approaches of 19 designers in total were analysed from two
separate studies.
3.1 Procedure (Study 1)
The first study was a longitudinal analysis of 7 undergraduate trainee engineers at the
University of Bath over a 22 week individual project. Participants had an average of 5
months industrial engineering experience, and were selected from a total population of
17 on a final year specialising design course. Although completing different projects,
each designer progressed through the typical stages of the design process, from initial
task clarification to building a physical proof-of-principle prototype. The project
structure is shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Project procedure (study 1)
Weeks 1-11
Weeks 12-22
Stage 1
Develop problem understanding
Stage 4
Develop final concept
Stage 2
Perform background research and
develop initial concepts
Stage 5
Manufacture proof of principle working
prototype
Stage 3
Report research and in-depth
specification
Stage 6
Full report
Assessment
Assessment
Data was gathered and analysed through the use of the engineers logbooks,
which they were required to keep as part of the assessment process. Logbooks were
chosen due to the good representation they can provide of the process followed
(McAlpine, Hicks, Huet, & Culley, 2006) and the reliance of under-graduates on hand-
drawn representations (Sobek, 2002). Due to study practicalities, it was not possible to
use other recording methods to gather further data such as full observation or protocol
analysis (Blessing & Chakrabarti, 2009). As a result some tasks, such as those
occurring on computers, could not be directly captured. Additionally, the seven studied
students were chosen for the apparent completeness of their logbooks, in order to allow
detailed coding. Each of these limitations was considered in developing the
methodology for the second study.
3.2 Procedure (Study 2)
The second study involved 12 undergraduate trainee engineers at the University of Bath,
with an average of 10 months industrial experience. Participants were randomly
selected from a total of 40 following a “product design and development” module.
Further details of the methodology for this paper have been published elsewhere (Cash,
Hicks, & Culley, 2012; Snider, Dekoninck, & Culley, 2012).
The study occurred according to Figure 5 over a period of four hours, designed
to mimic a complete design process as described by Hales (1986). Between each stage
participants were permitted short, supervised breaks to prevent fatigue, during which
they did not discuss the study. Throughout the study, the brief was to develop a
remotely operated mount to be placed underneath a balloon for amateur aerial
photography. The project brief was therefore constant between designers. Within this
research analysis occurred only on the third stage, during which the designers were to
“Develop an appropriate, feasible, dimensioned, detailed solution” and were presented
with several goals designed to stimulate later stage design activities (such as “include
all component dimensions”. Any conceptual design stage tasks that did occur (as
defined in Table 2) were omitted from analysis.
Duration
50 mins
50 mins
90 mins
50 mins
Teamwork
Individual
Group
Individual
Group
Figure 5: The structure of the second study
In addition to data gathered through logbooks, as occurred in Study 1, data was
collected using webcams to view participants, Panopto recording software to capture
computer screens (www.panopto.com) and LiveScribe (www.livescribe.com) notebooks
and pens to capture real time, detailed logbook data. This comprehensive method
ensured that all actions and tasks completed by the designers were captured, unlike
within Study 1.
3.3 Further testing
In each study, the designers completed a creative style test similar to that of the Kirton
Adaption-Innovation test (M. Kirton, 1976; M. J. Kirton, 1978). This test
predominantly differentiates between different creative styles, but has been shown to
bear some correlation to creative level (Isaksen & Puccio, 1988). Adaptors, by Kirton’s
definition, are more likely to work within rules and set methods, and excel at precision,
reliability and detail. Their creative approach is to “do things better”. Innovators, on
the other hand, are more likely to be undisciplined and adventurous in methods, with a
creative approach described as to “do things differently”. This description of innovators
better matches the traditional interpretation of a creative person (M. Kirton, 1976).
These tests allow validation of the framework and coding scheme against this external,
independent measure.
Information
Seeking
Group
Brainstorm
Detail Design
(Area of Study)
Design Review
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
3.4 Coding and analysis process
Coding of logbook data was completed in the same way for each study. Each logbook
was coded in three separate passes; the first to allow separation of individual tasks, the
second to identify the type of task, and the third to determine if the task displayed
evidence of expansion or restraint (therefore if it was restrained or expansive). Coding
in these separate passes allowed higher focus on each individual element of the coding
scheme. All passes occurred in one sitting and all coding was completed by a single
researcher, to ensure consistency. The exception to this is in the case of testing for
intercoder reliability, as described in the following section.
Within the second study, screen capture data was used to provide distinction
between a significantly higher number of tasks, capturing further computer-based tasks
and providing context to logbook data. Coding of computer-based tasks occurred in the
same three passes as the logbook data.
3.4.1 Coding validity and reliability
It is vital when developing a coding scheme that the results it produces are both valid
and reliable (Potter & Levine Donnerstein, 1999).
Construct validity of the scheme has been ensured through development from
existing literature and repeated application to sample data (which was not included in
analysis). Internal validity has been ensured through the rules by which coding occurs,
which have been designed to identify entities within the data (which are manifest) but
not to influence the coder in their interpretation of the transformations between entities
(and hence task types) that exist. This approach is necessary to ensure validity when
coding latent pattern data. Furthermore, the results have been compared to the results of
an external measure of creative style similar to the Kirton Adaption-Innovation test (M.
Kirton, 1976). As the scheme has been designed to measure creative style similar to
that of the creative style test, good correlation would suggest validity of the scheme
results. This is discussed in Section 4.5.
Reliability analysis of the coding scheme occurred on a sample of 10% of the
total tasks from the first study (a suitable quantity for analysis as described by Potter
and Levine Donnerstein (1999)). Testing was completed by the original researcher and
a single coder who was uninvolved in the development process. The coder was trained
and the rules of the scheme re-assessed to ensure reliability according to the
recommendation of Krippendorff (1981). This re-assessment was carefully performed
as to not decrease scheme validity. The tested sample contained data which was
previously unstudied by the testers, and data which was selected for its recorded style,
which was particularly difficult to code. To reduce memory effects, the tester waited
two months before re-coding this second set of data. Coding achieved a value for
Krippendorff’s alpha (A. F. Hayes & Krippendorff, 2007) of 0.77, a suitable value for
research such as that presented here (Blessing & Chakrabarti, 2009; Klenke, 2008).
4. Results
The following presents the results from each study, together whenever appropriate.
Results are initially presented relating to the stages of the design process and focus of
tasks within; then the creative approaches appearing within the later design stages and
types of task which are typically creative.
4.1 Focus of tasks in different design process stages – Study 1
Within Study 1, designers completed a combined total of 1045 tasks, with an average of
149 per designer. Of these, 32.9% were determined to be non-applicable to the design
process, consisting of “to do” lists, phone numbers, or other unrelated administrative
occurrences.
Looking at the combined results of all participants in Study 1 throughout the
project, there was a switch from a majority of information focus tasks to a majority of
application focus tasks, shown in Table 4. The boundaries between stages of the design
process were also consistently fuzzy and often non-chronological, with regular jumps
between different types of activities and different levels of detail (Figure 6).
Table 4: Proportion of information and application focused tasks throughout the design process (Study 1)
Design Stage
Task focus (%)
Information
Application
Analysis and Concept (early stage)
82.9
17.1
Embodiment
38.9
61.1
Detail
36.6
63.4
Figure 6: Progression through design stages for designer 1C (Study 1)
4.2 Tasks completed by designers – Study 2
In all, designers completed a total of 119 tasks in the 90 minute period of stage 3
(average 10 per designer). Due to the more restricted nature of the study, designers
completed no tasks that needed to be omitted from analysis.
4.3 The appearance of creative design approaches – Studies 1 and 2
Within the later stages, designers completed varying quantities and proportions of
effectuating (expansive application focus) and astute tasks (expansive information
focus). This appeared as a difference in preference for different types of task in which
designers were creative, as shown in Table 5. Where referred to directly, each
participant has been assigned a number according to the study in which they were
involved, and a letter to identify them within each study. For example, participant 1C
refers to participant C, who completed study 1.
Creative design approach is determined here by the whether the proportional
majority of expansive tasks were astute or effectuating. As shown, designers all
completed a significant proportion of tasks expansively, but showed a wide variation in
their predominant creative approach. The means here serve to provide comparability
between studies – for example, the proportion of application focus tasks in both studies
one and two are high and similar (Table 5; 63.2%, Study 1; 70.9%, Study 2), despite the
participants in Study 2 having identical projects, and the in Study 1 different.
Furthermore, the variation of expansive proportions around the mean demonstrate the
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85
Task Number
Concept
Embodiment
Detail
variety in approaches of the designers under the same conditions (Table 5; Study2;
average expansive application focus 23.3%; range 0.00% to 50.0%).
Table 5: Proportional later stage creative design approaches (Studies 1 and 2)
Study 1
Designer
Information Focus
(%)
Application Focus (%)
Primary
approach
Expansive
Proportion
(astute) (%)
Expansive
Proportion
(effectuating) (%)
1A
45.2
24.2
54.8
17.5
Astute
1B
48.8
25.0
51.2
47.6
Effectuating
1C
30.0
26.7
70.0
20.0
Astute
1D
15.4
0.00
84.6
18.2
Standard
1E
32.1
40.7
67.9
26.3
Astute
1F
42.9
14.6
57.1
45.3
Effectuating
1G
43.0
23.5
57.0
46.7
Effectuating
Average
36.8
22.1
63.2
31.7
Study 2
2A
25.0
0.00
75.0
50.0
Effectuating
2B
5.56
0.00
94.4
23.5
Effectuating
2C
16.7
50.0
83.3
40.0
Astute
2D
44.4
25.0
55.6
40.0
Effectuating
2E
11.1
0.00
88.9
18.8
Effectuating
2F
45.5
40.0
54.5
16.7
Astute
2G
16.7
100
83.3
20.0
Astute
2H
42.9
33.3
57.1
25.0
Astute
2I
33.3
0.00
66.7
16.7
Effectuating
2J
0.00
0.00
100
0.00
Standard
2K
40.0
0.00
60.0
0.00
Standard
2L
33.3
0.00
66.7
0.00
Standard
Average
29.1
20.1
70.9
23.3
There is a significant tendency in both studies for designers to complete
application focus tasks in the later stages (p<0.01, Study 1; p = 0.002, Study 2;
Wilcoxon signed rank test). Designer 1D, 2J, 2K and 2L each completed either no tasks
expansively or too few for confident analysis of their personal approach. They are
thereby classed as following a standard approach.
4.4 Creativity of within entity tasks and cross entity tasks – Studies 1 and 2
In both studies, designers completed a majority of cross entity tasks in an
expansive manner. While designers completed a near even proportion of within entity
and cross entity tasks in Study 1 (Table 6; 47.8% and 52.2% respectively), there was a
significant majority of within entity tasks in Study 2 (64.2% within entity; p = 0.0076,
Wilcoxon signed rank test), as shown in Table 6.
As seen in both studies, there is a significant tendency for designers to complete
a higher proportion of cross entity tasks expansively (34.2 %, p<0.025, Study 1; 34.3%,
p=0.0054, Study 2; Wilcoxon signed rank test), rather than within entity tasks.
Table 6: Proportion of within entity and cross entity tasks (Studies 1 and 2)
Study 1
Designer
Within Entity Tasks
(%)
Cross Entity Tasks (%)
Majority
Expansive
Proportion (%)
Expansive
Proportion (%)
1A
39.7
13.8
60.3
25.0
Cross entity
1B
31.7
26.9
68.3
41.1
Cross entity
1C
46.0
8.70
54.0
33.3
Cross entity
1D
74.4
17.2
25.6
10.0
Within entity
1E
63.1
18.9
36.9
51.6
Cross entity
1F
39.3
22.7
60.7
38.2
Cross entity
1G
40.5
31.3
59.5
40.4
Cross entity
Average
47.8
19.9
52.2
34.2
Study 2
Expansive
Proportion (%)
Expansive
Proportion (%)
2A
37.5
33.3
62.5
40.0
Cross entity
2B
72.2
15.4
27.8
40.0
Cross entity
2C
66.7
25.0
33.3
75.0
Cross entity
2D
66.7
33.3
33.3
33.3
None
2E
50.0
11.1
50.0
22.2
Cross entity
2F
63.6
14.3
36.4
50.0
Cross entity
2G
66.7
25.0
33.3
50.0
Cross entity
2H
71.4
20.0
28.6
50.0
Cross entity
2I
44.4
0.00
55.6
20.0
Cross entity
2J
90.0
0.00
10.0
0.00
None
2K
60.0
0.00
40.0
0.00
None
2L
83.3
0.00
16.7
0.00
None
Average
64.2
15.1
35.8
34.3
4.5 Correlation with creativity tests – Studies 1 and 2
For both studies, correlation analysis was performed between expansion within tasks
and the creative style test, similar to that of the Kirton Adaption-Innovation test (M.
Kirton, 1976). The purpose of this process was to provide an external measure for the
assessment of validity of the coding scheme, the presence of a significant correlation
indicating a relationship between assessment of creativity by expansion or each
designer’s creative approach, and designer creative style. Correlations and significance
are shown Table 7. The creative style test ranks participants on a normalised scale from
adaptor (lower scores) to innovator (higher scores), where the terms adaptor and
innovator represent participants with different styles of creativity. Those who are
stronger adaptors are characterised by personal traits such as precision, reliability and
efficiency; working within set rules and solving problems in understood ways. Those
who are stronger innovators are characterised as tangential thinkers, who work in
unexpected ways and often challenge rules (M. Kirton, 1976). Correlation then
represents the relationship between a higher score on the creative style test (therefore a
stronger innovator) and the listed variable.
Table 7: Correlation against the creative style test (studies 1 and 2)
Study 1
First Variable
Second Variable
Correlation
Significance
(P<…)
Creative style test
Cross entity type task expansion
0.834
0.00980
Strength of creative approach
0.804
0.0147
Later stage expansion
0.790
0.0172
Study 2
Creative style test
Later stage expansion
0.553
0.0312
Within entity type task expansion
0.523
0.0406
Cross entity type task expansion
0.518
0.0422
5. Discussion
By considering both studies in tandem, conclusions can be drawn regarding the
behaviour of designers and the approaches that they follow within the design process.
Following the same order as Section 4, this section initially discusses the focus of tasks
through different stages of the design process, followed by different creative approaches
that appear and the types of more typical creative tasks. These are then discussed in the
context of the development of designer support.
5.1 Focus of tasks in different stages of the design process
Seen within the individual results of Study 1 (Section 4.1), the framework allows
conclusions to be drawn regarding the structure of the design process, as completed in
real life by engineers.
The change from predominantly information to predominantly application
focused tasks as the designer moves between early and late stage design highlights the
importance of studying creativity in the later stages of the design process as a separate
entity. The later stage design process must be considered to have a different focus in
terms of the tasks that designers complete within. Other differences between early and
later stages have been noted by other researchers, such as the higher quantity of
constraints present at later stages (Howard et al., 2011; McGinnis & Ullman, 1990), and
the higher impact of later stage design changes on the surrounding systems (C Eckert et
al., 2004). This work demonstrates that the actual focus of tasks and predominant
creative approach of designers can also vary, underlining the importance of specific
research into the later stages of the design process.
Figure 6 also shows frequent switching between different design activities in the
real life design process. There is also then perhaps evidence of the suggestion that
designers do not progress linearly through stages of increasing detail; frequent jumping
and iteration between levels and between components or systems create fuzzy design
stage boundaries. Such behaviour has also perhaps been seen by other researchers in
work on opportunism (Guindon, 1990; Visser, 1994), (which has been suggested to
produces better results by Bender and Blessing (2004)); and the co-evolutionary design
process (Dorst & Cross, 2001; Maher, 2000).
5.2 Creative design approaches
As shown by results within Table 5 and Section 4.3, it can be said with some confidence
that designers display different creative approaches within the later stages of the design
process. While some are more often creative in attempting to identify new knowledge
and variables that can be used in the design (astute approach), others are more often
creative in attempting to find new uses for the knowledge or variables that are already
known (effectuating approach). This variation exists regardless of whether designers
are completing different projects (as in Study 1) or completing the same project (as in
Study 2), showing that behaviour is not due to the project, but rather due to the
designers’ creative style.
Much work in psychology has studied the various effects on creativity of
individual factors such as personality (Feist, 1999), skill (Ahmed et al., 2003), and
creative style (M. Kirton, 1976), demonstrating that creativity is highly related to the
individual and their background. The study of differing creative approaches employed
by different designers within the design process, the potential influences leading to their
appearance, and the eventual effect of their use; may lead to understanding allowing the
development of better designer support. This is further discussed in Section 5.6.
5.3 Focus of tasks
As described in Section 2.4, tasks can also be classified using the coding scheme
according to whether the designer maintains focus on a single area when completing a
task (termed within entity), or whether the designer switches focus from one area to
another (termed cross entity).
That both studies demonstrated a significant tendency for cross entity tasks to be
expansive more often (Section 4.4) suggests a pattern for creative behaviour. Designers
are more likely to be creative when they are working out how to apply knowledge or
variables to a design, or when they are studying the design to develop their knowledge;
rather than only developing knowledge or variables, or only refining a design.
Given this tendency, the higher proportion of designers completing within entity
tasks in Study 2 may be a result of attempting to increase design process efficiency. As
a strict and restrictive time limit existed in this study, it was necessary for designers to
proceed efficiently in order to complete the brief, limiting the divergence and
exploration that could occur.
Although requiring further work to understand fully, there is possibility that the
more frequent creativity of cross-entity tasks is related to them more often being ill-
defined. Due to the disjunction created when switching focus between information and
application (or vice-versa), it may be the case that when completing a cross-entity task,
the solution (or path to solution) is less clear than in a within entity task. If correct,
such a case would then relate to results from other researchers stating that more creative
designers will often structure problems as ill-defined even when a well-defined structure
exists (Candy & Edmonds, 1997; Cross, 2004b). When the route to output is not
known, it is perhaps necessary for exploration or divergence in order to reach a
solution; forming a fundamental part of the creative process (Cross, 2000; Guilford,
1956; Pugh, 1990).
5.4 Correlations with creative tests
Both studies showed significant, medium to high correlation between scores from the
creative style test and expansion within tasks as measured by the coding scheme.
Additionally, the first study showed correlation between scores from the creative style
test and the strength and type of creative approach as measured by the coding scheme.
In other words, those who are most often astute in their approach are also stronger
adaptors by the creative test measure; and those who are most often effectuating in their
approach are also stronger innovators by the creative test measure. Validation then
exists in that the creative approaches as measured by the coding scheme correlate
significantly with the creative style types defined by Kirton (1976). Furthermore,
correlation between expansive task proportion and creative style score agrees with
existing literature; stating that those who score higher on the creative style test are also
often those who display the typical characteristics of a creative person and a creative
process (Isaksen & Puccio, 1988; M. Kirton, 1976).
5.5 Cohesion of studies
As demonstrated by similar results from both presented studies (Sections 4.3 and 4.4),
conclusions that are drawn stem from designer behaviour, rather than experimental
design and methodology.
Differing creative approaches were detected when undertaking a long term study
and when analysing a short laboratory study; whether designers were completing
different projects or the same; and whether coding using only logbooks or when using
more comprehensive recording procedures. Whilst study within industry is required to
characterise behaviour of expert designers, the combined sample size of 19 participants
is suitable to provide initial conclusions regarding the existence of differing creative
approaches.
5.6 Implications for designer support
Within the overall scope of the research, the purpose of the studies presented here is to
provide understanding of important considerations for designer support and design
process improvement within later stage design.
As described in Section 5.1, the later stages of the design process present a
different situation to the designer. It is then important that research in creativity
considers the later stages within a different context, and with different requirements
from the early stages, until proven otherwise. Whilst a small body of research exists
considering designer behaviour within later stage design situations (such as Bender and
Blessing (2004) on the subject of opportunism; C. Eckert et al. (2012) on the form of
later stage creative changes; and Motte et al.(2004) on later stage problem-solving
strategy), it is only with significant further work on later stage designer behaviour and
creativity that sufficient knowledge will exist to develop evidence-based designer
support for later stage design.
To this end, through the evidence of different creative approaches and of typical
patterns in creative behaviour as highlighted by this work, it is possible to begin
suggesting improved methods of designer support. Multiple options exist through the
use of differing creative approaches alone. Stimulating designers according to or
against their own creative approach may encourage or discourage the appearance of
creative behaviour. Through such control, designers may be able to tailor their process
and hence design solution to match the requirements of the company.
There may also be more appropriate levels or styles of creativity for a given
design situation, design problem or context; giving opportunities for balancing non-
creative and creative behaviour with their potential benefits to the design outcome and
the efficiency of the design process. For example, when encountering a significant
design problem a designer may need to be particularly creative in a highly complex
situation, hence requiring the enhancement of their own creative behaviour.
Conversely, when high time pressures exist it may prove most beneficial to discourage
the occurrence of exploratory creative behaviour, instead encouraging the designer to
quickly and efficiently produce an output. Depending on the requirements of the
situation, knowledge of the style of each designer may allow careful selection of design
staff in particular projects, and of careful selection of methods of support.
The more creative nature of cross entity tasks (Section 5.3) presents a way in
which non-creative and creative tasks can be stimulated. Consistently encouraging
designers to switch between information and application focus (cross entity type tasks)
may initiate more creative behaviour. Conversely, consistently encouraging designers
to focus on only information or application focus tasks (within entity type tasks) may
initiate highly focused behaviour to swiftly complete design activities.
Deeper understanding of the features of later stage design and of the behaviour
of designers within it will help develop specific, effective and appropriate methods of
support.
6. Conclusions
This paper has presented results from two separate studies into designer behaviour
within the engineering design process, with particular focus on the later stages.
Through the use of a coding scheme designed to identify different creative approaches,
the types of tasks completed by designers have been analysed and patterns within the
sequence of their appearance have led to a detailed understanding of individual designer
behaviour and creative design approaches. This understanding is required to provide
appropriate, effective and efficient methods of designer support.
Both studies were undertaken with undergraduate or trainee engineers, with an
average of 5 months of industrial engineering experience for study one and 10 months
for study two. The work has shown significant results relating to focus of different
stages of the design process, the appearance of creative design approaches and typically
more creative tasks (Sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.3); and the framework has been shown to
produce repeatable results in varying experiments (Section 5.5) to a good level of
reliability (Section 3.4.1) The authors are now undertaking similar activities with more
experienced engineers in an industry context.
Analysis has confirmed the appearance of two different creative design
approaches within later stage design situations, one of which concerns the knowledge
and variables present for the design to occur, and the other of which concerns how that
knowledge and those variables can be applied and used within the design. These
creative approaches appear independent of the project completed suggesting that they
are a trait of individual designer behaviour, a conclusion supported by correlation with
an external creative style test.
The implication of this work, that will need to be further validated with the
future work referred to above, is that a thorough knowledge of the creative approaches
that designers utilise and the design situation in which they work will allow the
enhancement of support of the later stages of the design process. By encouraging or
equally discouraging creative approaches the designer may be able to control their
process and output for the benefit of the company; increasing process efficiency when
under time pressure, or increasing exploration when facing complex problem solving,
for example. Also, creative behaviour has been shown to be more common when
designers are switching focus between different types of task (Section 5.3), providing
initial suggestion for a manner by which creative designer behaviour can be supported.
The work reported in this paper has been undertaken with support from the Engineering and
Physical Sciences Research Council’s (EPSRC) Innovative Design and Manufacturing Research
Centre (IdMRC) at the University of Bath (grant reference EP/E00184X/1)
References
Ahmed, S., Wallace, K. M., & Blessing, L. T. (2003). Understanding the differences
between how novice and experienced designers approach design tasks. Research
in engineering design, 14(1), 1-11.
Akin, Ö, & Akin, C. (1996). Frames of reference in architectural design: analysing the
hyperacclamation (Aha-!). Design Studies, 17(4), 341-361.
Atman, Cynthia J., Chimka, Justin R., Bursic, Karen M., & Nachtmann, Heather L.
(1999). A comparison of freshman and senior engineering design processes.
Design Studies, 20(2), 131-152. doi: Doi: 10.1016/s0142-694x(98)00031-3
Bender, B., & Blessing, L. (2004). On the Superiority of Opportunistic Design
Strategies during Early Embodiment Design. Paper presented at the DESIGN
2004: The 8th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia.
Blessing, L., & Chakrabarti, A. (2009). DRM, a Design Research Methodology.
London: Springer.
Brown, D. C. (2010, 12-14 July 2010). The Curse of Creativity. Paper presented at the
DCC10: the 4th International Conference on Design Computing and Cognition,
Stuttgart, Germany.
Candy, L., & Edmonds, E. A. (1997). Supporting the creative user: a criteria-based
approach to interaction design. Design Studies, 18(2), 185-194.
Cash, P. J., Hicks, B. J., & Culley, S. J. (2012). A comparison of the behaviour of
student engineers and professional engineers when designing. Paper presented
at the DESIGN 2012: 12th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik,
Croatia.
Chakrabarti, A. (2006). Defining and supporting design creativity. Paper presented at
the Design 2006: The 9th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia.
Christiaans, H., & Venselaar, K. (2005). Creativity in design engineering and the role of
knowledge: Modelling the expert. International Journal of Technology and
Design Education, 15(3), 217-236.
Cropley, A. (2006). In Praise of Convergent Thinking. Creativity Research Journal,
18(3), 391-404. doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1803_13
Cross, N. (2000). Engineering Design Methods - Strategies for Product Design (3rd
Edition). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Cross, N. (2004a). Creative Thinking by Expert Designers. The Journal of Design
Research, 4(2). doi: 10.1504/JDR.2004.009839
Cross, N. (2004b). Expertise in design: an overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427-441.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of
creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of
problem-solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425-437. doi: Doi: 10.1016/s0142-
694x(01)00009-6
Duffey, Michael R., & Dixon, John R. (1990). A program of research in mechanical
design: computer-based models and representations. Mechanism and Machine
Theory, 25(3), 383-395.
Dym, C. L. (1994). Engineering Design: A Synthesis of Views: Cambridge University
Press.
Eckert, C, Clarkson, P. J., & Zanker, W. (2004). Change and customisation in complex
engineering domains. Research in engineering design, 15(1), 1-21.
Eckert, C., Stacey, M., Wyatt, D., & Garthwaite, P. (2012). Change as little as possible:
creativity in design by modification. Journal of Engineering Design, 23(4), 337-
360.
Feist, G. J. (1999). The influence of personality on artistic and scientific creativity. In R.
J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Feist, G. J., & Barron, F. X. (2003). Predicting creativity from early to late adulthood:
Intellect, potential, and personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(2),
62-88. doi: 10.1016/s0092-6566(02)00536-6
Gero, J. S. (1990). Design Prototypes: A Knowledge Representation Schema for
Design. AI Magazine, 11, 26-36.
Gero, J. S. (1996). Creativity, emergence and evolution in design. Knowledge-Based
Systems, 9(7), 435-448.
Gero, J. S. (2000). Computational models of innovative and creative design processes.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 64(2-3), 183-196.
Gero, J. S., & Kannengiesser, U. (2004). The situated function-behaviour-structure
framework. Design Studies, 25(4), 373-391.
Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53(4), 267-293.
Guindon, R. (1990). Designing the design process: exploiting opportunistic thoughts.
Human-Computer Interaction, 5(2), 305-344.
Hales, C. (1986). Analysis of the Engineering Design Process in an Industrial Context.
(PhD), University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability
measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(1), 77-89.
Hayes, J. R. (1989). Cognitive processes in creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning &
C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (Vol. 7, pp. 135-145): Springer.
Howard, T. J., Culley, S. J., & Dekoninck, E. A. (2008). Describing the creative design
process by the integration of engineering design and cognitive psychology
literature. Design Studies, 29(2), 160-180. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2008.01.001
Howard, T. J., Culley, S. J., & Dekoninck, E. A. (2009). The Integration of Systems
Levels and Design Activities to Position Creativity Support Tools. Paper
presented at the ICoRD '09: International Conference on Research into Design,
Bangalore, India.
Howard, T. J., Nair, V. V., Culley, S. J., & Dekoninck, E. A. (2011). The Propagation
and Evolution of Design Constraints: A Case Study. Paper presented at the
ICoRD '11: International Conference on Research into Design, Bangalore, India.
Isaksen, S. G., & Puccio, G. J. (1988). Adaption-innovation and the Torrance Tests of
Creative Thinking: The level-style issue revisited. Psychological reports, 63(2),
659-670.
Kaptelinin, V., Kuutti, K., & Bannon, L. (1995). Activity theory: Basic concepts and
applications. Human-Computer Interaction, 1015/1995, 189-201.
Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of
applied psychology, 61(5), 622-629.
Kirton, M. J. (1978). Have adaptors and innovators equal levels of creativity.
Psychological reports, 42(3), 695–698.
Klenke, K. (2008). Qualitative research in the study of leadership: Emerald.
Krippendorff, K. (1981). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (Second
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lubart, T. I. (1999). Creativity across cultures. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of
Creativity (pp. 339-350). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Maher, M. L. (2000). A model of co-evolutionary design. Engineering with computers,
16(3), 195-208.
McAlpine, H., Hicks, B. J., Huet, G., & Culley, S. J. (2006). An investigation into the
use and content of the engineer's logbook. Design Studies, 27(4), 481-504. doi:
10.1016/j.destud.2005.12.001
McGinnis, B. D., & Ullman, D. G. (1990). The Evolution of Commitments in the
Design of a Component. Journal of Mechanical Design, 114, 1-7.
Motte, D., Andersson, P., & Bjarnemo, R. (2004). A Descriptive Model of the
Designer’s Problem-Solving Activity During the Later Phases of the Mechanical
Engineering Design Process. Paper presented at the CDEN Design Conference,
Montreal.
Nguyen, L, & Shanks, G. (2009). A framework for understanding creativity in
requirements engineering. Information and software technology, 51(3), 655-662.
Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (1984). Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. London:
Springer.
Potter, W. J., & Levine Donnerstein, D. (1999). Rethinking validity and reliability in
content analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27(3), 258-284.
Pugh, S. (1990). Total Design: integrated methods for successful product engineering.
Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Rhodes, Mel. (1961). An Analysis of Creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305-310.
Samuel, P., & Jablokow, K. (2011). Toward an adaption-innovation strategy for
engineering design. Paper presented at the ICED'11: International conference on
engineering design, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Sarkar, Prabir, & Chakrabarti, Amaresh. (2011). Assessing design creativity. Design
Studies, 32(4), 348-383. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2011.01.002
Shah, J. J., Smith, S. M., & Vargas-Hernandez, N. (2003). Metrics for measuring
ideation effectiveness. Design Studies, 24(2), 111-134.
Shai, O., Reich, Y., & Rubin, D. (2009). Creative conceptual design: Extending the
scope by infused design. Computer-Aided Design, 41(3), 117-135. doi: DOI:
10.1016/j.cad.2007.11.004
Shneiderman, B., Fischer, G., Czerwinski, M., Resnick, M., Myers, B., Candy, L., . . .
Hewett, T. (2006). Creativity support tools: Report from a US National Science
Foundation sponsored workshop. International Journal of Human-Computer
Interaction, 20(2), 61-77.
Snider, C. M., Cash, P. J., Dekoninck, E. A., & Culley, S. J. (2012). Variation in
creative behaviour during the later stages of the design process. Paper presented
at the ICDC2012: The 2nd International Conference on Design Creativity,
Glasgow, Scotland.
Snider, C. M., Culley, S. J., & Dekoninck, E. A. (2013). Analysing creative behaviour
in the later stage design process. Design Studies, In Press. doi:
10.1016/j.destud.2013.03.001
Snider, C. M., Dekoninck, E. A., & Culley, S. J. (2012). Improving confidence in
smaller data sets through methodology: The development of a coding scheme.
Paper presented at the DESIGN 2012: The 12th International Design
Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia.
Sobek, D. K. (2002). Representation in design: data from engineering journals. Paper
presented at the ASEE/IEEE: 32nd Frontiers in Education Conference, Boston,
MA.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: prospects and
paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3-15). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Stokes, M. (Ed). (2001). Managing Engineering Knowledge. London: Professional
Engineering Publishing Limited.
Visser, W. (1994). Organisation of design activities: opportunistic, with hierarchical
episodes. Interacting with computers, 6(3), 239-274.
Yilmaz, Seda, & Seifert, Colleen M. (2011). Creativity through design heuristics: A
case study of expert product design. Design Studies, 32(4), 384-415. doi:
10.1016/j.destud.2011.01.003
