See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312023331

Comparison of the SCAMPER Design-by-

Analogy Method to Non-Design-by-Analogy
Methods

Article August 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 53

5 authors, including:

Kristin Lee Wood Lucienne Blessing

Singapore University of Technology and Design Singapore University of Technology and Design
450 PUBLICATIONS 7,413 CITATIONS 137 PUBLICATIONS 1,635 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Complex Systems Design and Management View project

Product Redesign, Product Evolution, Design for Assembly, Reverse Engineering View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kristin Lee Wood on 02 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Research in Product Development

Comparison of the SCAMPER Design-by-Analogy Method

to Non-Design-by-Analogy Methods

Case-study
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Lucienne Blessing & Dr.-Ing. Diana Moreno

Submitted from

B.Sc. Ghysens Quentin 0110964730

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF FIGURES...................................................................................... IV

SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 6

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 7

1.1 CONTEXT AND MOTIVATION ............................................................................. 7

1.2 RESEARCH SCOPE .......................................................................................... 9
1.3 CASE-STUDY ORGANIZATION ........................................................................... 9

2 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................... 11

2.1 EDUCATION OF IDEATION METHODS ............................................................... 11

2.2 ANALOGICAL REASONING .............................................................................. 12
2.3 THE SEMANTIC NETWORK ............................................................................. 13
2.4 DISTANCE, FIXATION & EXPERTISE ................................................................. 14
2.5 DBA IDEATION METHODS .............................................................................. 15
2.6 DESCRIPTION OF THE METHODS..................................................................... 16
2.6.1 Brainstorming Method ......................................................................... 16
2.6.2 635 Method ......................................................................................... 16
2.6.3 SCAMPER Method ............................................................................. 17
2.7 SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 17

3 STUDY DESIGN............................................................................................... 19

3.1 EXPERIMENT DESIGN .................................................................................... 19

3.2 ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 21
3.2.1 Quantity of ideation ............................................................................. 21
3.2.2 Fixation ............................................................................................... 21
3.2.3 Novelty ................................................................................................ 22
3.2.4 Statistical Data Validation ................................................................... 23

4 RESULTS ......................................................................................................... 25

4.1.1 Quantity of ideation ............................................................................. 25

4.1.2 Fixation ............................................................................................... 26
4.1.3 Novelty ................................................................................................ 27
4.1.4 Outliers ................................................................................................ 28
5 GENERAL DISCUSSION ................................................................................. 31

5.1 IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS ......................................................... 33

6 APPENDIX ....................................................................................................... 35

6.1 APPENDIX A BRAINSTORMING TEACHING MATERIAL ..................................... 36

6.2 APPENDIX B 635 TEACHING MATERIAL ........................................................ 39
6.3 APPENDIX C SCAMPER TEACHING MATERIAL ............................................ 42

7 REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 45
 TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Semantic Network for the Brand Tesla ....................................................... 13
Figure 2 Experimental Outline .................................................................................. 20
Figure 3 Total Quantity Normality Fit for 635 ............................................................ 28
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Summary of the Study ................................................................................... 8

Table 2 Work Contribution ........................................................................................ 10
Table 3 Quantity of Ideas Generated ........................................................................ 25
Table 4 Fixation of the Groups ................................................................................. 26
Table 5 Novelty of the Groups .................................................................................. 27
Table 6 Outliers Summary ........................................................................................ 29
 SUMMARY

Our current electricity grid is not capable of following up the increasing demand in
energy consumption. If future households do not want to sit in the dark, designers need
to come up with innovative solutions that incorporate sustainability and that drastically
change the current economy. To help them in their ideation process, different creativity
methods have emerged. A freshly developed field of creativity methods is analogy-
inspired design.

The case-study compares the design-by-analogy method SCAMPER with the

traditional methods Brainstorming and 635. The data-set that has been provided are
the solutions that were created by undergraduate students during a single phase
experiment at the University of Singapore. The solutions were sorted into bins of
distinctive ideas and ideation metrics quantity, fixation and novelty were computed. To
increase the statistical power, subgroups were identified to be comparable and merged
to form three groups, each representing one of the above mentioned methods. In order
to compare the ideation metrics of the different methods between each other, a
statistical analysis was performed. To asses statistically significant differences,
ANOVAs, 2-sample t-tests, and Mann-Whitney tests were used depending of the
metric distribution.

No statistically significant difference has been found between the three methods in
terms of quantity and novelty. However, a trend in increasing novelty for the SCAMPER
method has been suggested. Most important result is that there has been a statistically
significantly decrease in fixation for the SCAMPER method compared to both
traditional ones. Other interesting result is that there is no difference in fixation between
Brainstorming and the 635 method which means that learning the 635 method does
not add a cognitive load. Contradictions with the literature were manifested and
possible reasons were listed as different design tasks and different expertise of the
participants.

Overall the SCAMPER design-by-analogy method appears to help overcoming fixation

and seems to assist in creating innovative solutions. Distinctive and interesting trends
have been presented that are worth further exploration.
Introduction 7

1 Introduction

The case study represents a small scale research into the domain of analogy-inspired
design. The research was performed at the Faculty of Sciences, Technology and
Communications at the University of Luxembourg under the supervision of Prof. Dr.-
Ing. Lucienne Blessing and Dr.-Ing. Diana Moreno.

1.1 Context and Motivation

Over the last century our society has grown dramatically. Reasons are population
growth, technological advances and the overall social evolution. This growth is causing
a significant damage to our environment, since the global societys growth is directly
linked to an increase in consumption of products and resources [1]. The manufacturing
of such goods often creates negative environmental impacts, such as pollution, loss of
biodiversity or climate change. There is a need to create solutions that incorporate
sustainability from the beginning on and that are able to change the consumer
behaviour into a sustainable direction. This need means that business must respond
faster to change by improving their productivity and focusing on the generation of
innovative sustainable products. Those last points put a lot of pressure on current
designers.

A range of techniques and methods exists to assist designers during the idea
generation stage. Most of the newly developed ideation techniques and methods are
related to analogy-inspired design. These design-by-analogy methods help the
designer to identify potentially useful analogies to solve design problems. The
advantage of such analogy-inspired methods is that they help designers to think out of
the box. This out of the box thinking is required for the creation of solutions that
combine novelty and sustainability.

It is commonly known that industry applies training sessions in traditional ideation

methods. However, for being able to simplify designers task there is a need to educate
the people in different creativity methods before they leave the academic path. This
education can be given by teaching undergraduate students during their studies. A
benefit from this procedure is that the performance of such ideation methods can be
tested if the theoretical lesson is followed by an experimental training session.
Introduction 8

The experimental study described in this report compares the use of design-by-
analogy method SCAMPER with two non-analogy-inspired methods, Brainstorming
and 635, by means of ideation metrics. The data comes from a set of experiments that
has been conducted with undergraduate students during their introduction to a design
class at the Singapore University of Technology and Design. The experiment has been
carried out in a single phase with three different experimental conditions, representing
the different methods mentioned before. The problem participants were working on
was how would you change the billing processes for utilities to promote energy usage
reduction, which incorporates a relevant sustainable thematic of a product service
system. The data set used in this comparison comes from this experiment that has
been provided for being able to conduct the research. Table 1 gives a brief summary
about the study.

Table 1 Summary of the Study

Nature of the study Descriptive

Data collection method Experimental
Duration 35 minutes
Generating solutions to a given design
Task
product service system design task
Undergraduate students from the
Participants
University of Singapore
Case size Total of 45 participants
Bins of solutions, creativity metrics,
Coding and analysis method
statistical analysis
Introduction 9

1.2 Research Scope

To address the motivating questions, the following questions are used to define the
research scope of this study:

Is there any statistical significant difference in ideation metrics outcome for

undergraduate students during the usage of the SCAMPER design-by-analogy
method compared to the Brainstorming and the 635 method?
Does the usage of the SCAMPER design-by-analogy method helps to
overcome design fixation for undergraduate students during the ideation stage,
compared to the Brainstorming and the 635 method?
Do results obtained match with the available results in the literature review?

The hypothesis and negative hypothesis are as follows:

There is a statistical significant difference in creativity metrics outcome for

undergraduate students during the usage of the SCAMPER design-by-analogy
method compared to the Brainstorming and the 635 method.
There is no statistical significant difference in creativity metrics outcome for
undergraduate students during the usage of the SCAMPER design-by-analogy
method compared to the Brainstorming and the 635 method.

The case-study adequately addresses these questions. Through the different analysis
of the collected data an answer should be given to those questions and one of the two
hypotheses should be verified at the end.

1.3 Case-Study Organization

The case study is marked with 12 European Credit Transfer Points (ECTS), which
leads to a total of 300 working hours. The total time range is 13 weeks from 21.09 to
18.12, resulting in 24 hours or 3-times 8 hours a week of workload. Following table 2
defines the 13 work weeks in key words description as well as further explanations and
the respective place in the report.
 Introduction 10

Table 2 Work Contribution

Report
Week number Description Detail
Chapter
39:
Introduction / 1
21.09 27.09.2015
40: Literature review related to idea
Literature Review 2
28.09 04.10.2015 generation
41:
Literature Review 2
05.10 11.10.2015
42:
Literature Review 2
12.10 18.10.2015
Gaining further knowledge by
43: 6.1,6.2
Creation of Teaching Mat. developing teaching material for
19.10 25.10.2015 & 6.3
design-by-analogy methods
44: 6.1,6.2
Creation of Teaching Mat.
26.10 01.11.2015 & 6.3
45: 6.1,6.2
Creation of Teaching Mat.
02.11 08.11.2015 & 6.3
Present the developed teaching
46: Applying the Teaching
material in an academic setup 6
09.11 15.11.2015 Mat.
without data collection
47: Collect and transcribe ideas in an
Sort the Data into Bins 3
16.11 22.11.2015 excel database
Write database structure that
48:
Comp. of Creativity Metr. contains all the data into a single 3.2
23.11 29.11.2015
sheet and compute creativity metrics
Learning statistical analysis for
49:
Statistical Analysis parametrical and non-parametrical 3.2.4
30.11 06.12.2015
distributions
50: Perform statistical analysis with
Statistical Analysis 4
07.12 13.12.2015 Minitab
51:
Conclusion Discuss and draw conclusions 5
14.12 18.12.2015
Literature Review 11

Creativity takes courage.

-Henri Matisse

2 Literature Review

Population growth is directly linked to increasing consumption of resources and is

causing significant damage to our environment [2]. An example of resource
consumption is the agricultural expansion. The intensification of agriculture has
harmful impacts on the earths ecosystem [2]. If the past trend continues, the diversity
and functioning of the remaining natural ecosystem are in danger [3].

Common implementations against life cycle environmental problems are recycling

approaches, minimization of waste, cleaner engines, cleaner production, etc. However,
for being able to change the current trend, it is not sufficient to work on repair
solutions. Sustainability should be a preventive thinking of the human being. This
behaviour change is complicated to nourish and its initiation is even more difficult [4].

Surprisingly, solutions that are able to encourage sustainable behaviour already exist.
An example are product service systems that combine products and services [5]. The
idea behind product service systems is to combine the expertise of the designer with
the knowledge of the manufacturer resulting in a reduction of input costs and an
increase in customer value [6]. An assumption of current research [7] is that the client
does not specifically demand a product or service, but the possibility to satisfy a need.
The choice that a customer makes is linked to evidence in satisfaction [8].

2.1 Education of Ideation Methods

Novel solutions that incorporates evidence in satisfaction and that are able to change
the sustainable behaviour of the customer are required more and faster than ever. This
need puts a lot of pressure on current designers. To help them in their ideation process,
methods and tools have emerged that assist during the idea finding stage. However,
this area remains relatively new [9].

The goal of designers education is to integrate knowledge and apply this knowledge
to develop solutions. For being able to simplify designers task there is a need to
educate the people in different creativity methods before they leave the academic path.
Literature Review 12

This education can be given by teaching undergraduate students. Furthermore, it is

equally important to test the impact of changing the design problems and the methods.
The case-study compares performance of an existing design-by-analogy method to
two non-analogy-inspired methods with respect to creativity metrics. The experiment
is performed with a relevant product service system design task that incorporates a
sustainable thematic.

Before setting up and running an appropriate experiment it is preliminary to understand

how the human brain functions during the ideation process.

2.2 Analogical Reasoning

The concept of transferring knowledge from a source domain to a target domain is

referred to as analogical reasoning [10]. Gentner proposed a structure-mapping theory,
explaining that analogies depend upon structural similarity of relationships [11]. In
other words, analogies give the possibility to use ideas from one domain to gain
perceptivity in another domain.

The use of analogy can be braked down into four steps [12]:

Retrieving information from memory (selection)

Mapping the source to the target and generating interferences (mapping)
Evaluation and adapting these interferences (evaluation)
Learning something from the success or failure of the analogy (learning)

Analogy can be seen as mental tool that people use to a certain degree. For example,
preschool children are already able to reason by analogy without any training [13].
Analogy provides a powerful mechanism for forming ideas that go beyond anything
that the human can directly experience while still maintaining conceptual links to it.
This implies that the work of designers can be facilitated by enabling the view on
particular analogies or domains [14]. Especially the second step of an analogy process,
called mapping, seems of interest during the ideation stage.
Literature Review 13

2.3 The Semantic Network

How humans access their memory during the ideation process is described by the
semantic network. The semantic network represents knowledge in our memory by
knots (nodes) and joins (lines) [7]. Knots are associations people have with a defined
subject, while joins represent the relationship to the object or attribute. The distance
between the knots represents the closeness of the relationship or association. For
example, in figure 1, a semantic network has been created for the brand Tesla.
Important is that every human being will have slightly different connections to a certain
thematic, resulting in different semantic networks.

Figure 1 Semantic Network for the Brand Tesla

Based on the semantic memory model an association is remembered more easily if

the overall travelled distance of the brain through several joins for reaching the
correspondent knot remains short [10]. Same holds true if the number of active paths
that converges to the specific knot is high. Hence, the semantic network model is
helpful in explaining how designers access long-term memory for developing new
ideas.
Literature Review 14

2.4 Distance, Fixation & Expertise

The use of analogies in engineering science does not just expand knowledge, but also
solve problems [15, 16]. Especially engineering designers are able to benefit from
analogies during the invention of innovative solutions [17, 18]. Investigation of analogy
usage in design is referred to as analogy-inspired design or design-by-analogy (DbA).

The analogical distance is a major theme of DbA research. In this context two variables
have been defined: near and distant analogies [19]. While some studies agreed that
showing distant analogies is more beneficial for the ideation outcome [19, 20], others
argued against this fact [21, 22]. Other results suggest that near and distant are relative
terms that depend of the potential stimuli [23]. Far analogies seem to overcome near
ones during the ideation stage. Nevertheless, if the stimulation is too distant, it
becomes harmful to the design process [23]. Furthermore, a data mapping approach
that identifies potential analogies has been tested in more recent research [23].

Another area of DbA research concerns the design fixation. People appear to struggle
interpreting new exploitations of objects if they already know the regular properties of
that objects [24]. In other words, humans find it difficult to defeat a basic idea they
already have developed, resulting in creating solution variants [25]. Researchers tried
different approaches to overcome design fixation and indications have been made that
it can be extenuated [26, 27]. Astonishingly, experiments have revealed the dual nature
of analogies in respect to fixation [24]. An example is the SCAMPER method, which
increases both fixation and novelty of the outcome compared to a control group. An
explanation of that result is that it is possible that fixation for SCAMPER has a
beneficial effect by enabling idea refining [SIC] while at the same time being prompted
with questions that may assist participants to jump out of the design space area they
are exploring. [28]. Furthermore, during the fixation process designers copied
solutions that they could not understand, resulting in new perceptions leading to
understanding the principle [29].

Furthermore, a research area of DbA is expertise. Expertise is the comparison

between novices and experts during the ideation process. It is common knowledge that
industrial newcomers have a different approach during their work as compared to an
old hand. Despite that novices tend to be less chaotic during the process, experts get
Literature Review 15

far better and faster results [30]. Some studies argued that novices have more difficulty
with the design-by-analogy execution [31, 32]. By contrast, visual analogies tend to be
more beneficial for novices than for experts [17]. In regard of fixation, experts can
easier palliate their blocking with the help of certain material [33].

2.5 DbA Ideation Methods

There exist several methods to support analogy based design. Most of these methods
have been developed recently. The sources of analogous inspiration differ from one
method to another [10].

An early introduced method is TRIZ, based on a large patent analysis, which instructs
designers to find contradictions and shows with the help of a matrix different principles
to overcome these contradictions [34]. Another early method, named Synetics, was
introduced in 1961. Synetics looks for distant analogy by answering direct questions
[35]. A more recent method is WordTree which also work on instinctive knowledge and
adds a so called WordNet database to get analogical arousal by finding related terms
[36].

A high number of non-digital methods has been developed, however group-based

methods are in terms of our technical advancement outdated. New trend are
computational analogy tools based on knowledge-based data systems. Examples of
such tools are IDEA-INSPIRE, Design by Analogy to Nature Engine (DANE), Ask
Nature, and ARGO just to name a few. While such computational tools can be seen as
update of group-based methods, the designer must still manually play around with the
framework that he needs to learn [24].

Most recent area of analogy tools uses sophisticated algorithms that enables the
automation of such processes. An early try is done with a patent-structuring algorithm
that automatically finds near and distant analogies to arose the designer [23]. Such
algorithm-based methods seem promising and a lot of effort is currently put into their
research.

The report focuses on the comparison of non-digital ideation methods. Two non-DbA
methods, Brainstorm and 635, will be compared to the SCAMPER DbA method.
Literature Review 16

2.6 Description of the Methods

The research involves participants working with three different methods during an
ideation session. The DbA method is SCAMPER and the non-DbA methods are
Brainstorming and 635. The developed teaching material for those methods can be
found in the appendix 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3.

2.6.1 Brainstorming Method

The brainstorming method generates a flood of new ideas [37]. The method that has
been originally suggested by Osborn relies strongly on stimulation of the memory and
the association of ideas. The principle is that open minded people bring up any
thoughts that occur to them, resulting in a trigger of new ideas.

First a group leader is selected that only takes initiative on the occurrence of
organizational problems [35]. Second step is the introduction of the problem and the
task clarification during approximately 10 minutes. During the 45 minutes session all
participants avoid rejecting absurd ideas and make sure not to demotivate other
participants by criticizing any idea. Every idea is recorded, no matter the practicability.
To finish the results are reviewed by experts and by the entire group to avoid
misunderstandings.

2.6.2 635 Method

The 635 method is built on the brainstorming technique and has been refined by
Rohrbach in 1968 [37]. The method that is also referred to as brain-writing has several
advantages over the brainstorming method: It has no reliance on oral communication,
good ideas are developed more systematically, it is possible to origin who generated
the successful solution, there is no group leader ship problem, it involves actively all
the participants, and there is no moderator required.

635 stands for 6 team members, 3 ideas, and 5 rounds [35]. Six team members are
arranged around a table and each one receives a blank sheet of paper. All the
participants spend five minutes to sketch or write 3 ideas. Next step is to pass the
paper to the participant on the right without verbal communication. From here on the
participants have five more minutes to further develop the recorded ideas or to include
three additional ones. The process is repeated five times until each participant receive
the sheet of paper they started with.
Literature Review 17

2.6.3 SCAMPER Method

SCAMPER is an acronym that stands for Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to
other purposes, Eliminate, and Rearrange [37]. The SCAMPER technique uses a set
of directed questions to help evolving existing solutions into one that is superior. The
stimulus comes from answering questions that directs the user to think in alternative
ways to come up with new ideas.

2.7 Summary

A range of Design-by-Analogy (DbA) methods have emerged that assist designers

during the idea generation stage. DbA methods identify potentially useful analogies to
solve design problems. These methods are effective for the development of physical
products and services [24]. Increasing the education of DbA methods will encourage
the designers to use such methods, helping to create innovative ideas that incorporate
sustainability.

The SCAMPER DbA method will be compared to two non-DbA methods,

Brainstorming and 635, during an experiment with a product service system design
task. The creativity metrics will be computed from participants solutions. The
differences in creativity metrics will help to understand the effect that the application of
a DbA method has on a given design task compared to non-DbA methods.
Literature Review 18
Study Design 19

3 Study Design

The experimental study compares the DbA method SCAMPER with two non-DbA
methods, Brainstorming and 635 by means of ideation metrics. A set of experiments
was conducted by Hltt-Otto K., Moreno D. and Telenko C. in a single phase with
undergraduate students of the Singapore University of Technology and Design during
the introduction to a design class. The data set of this experiments is provided to the
author for being able to conduct the research and to write the case-study. A non-
disclosure agreement has been signed to make sure that the data will not be used for
other purposes.

3.1 Experiment Design

Participants were selected by their study program. All the 46 participants from the
Singapore University of Technology and Design were enrolled in engineering studies.
An equally distribution has been done according to the gender. The final distributions
were as follows: Brainstorming 9, 635 19 and SCAMPER 17 participants.
Brainstorming had been separated into two teams of 5 and 4 participants respectively.
Brain-Writing had been separated into three teams of 5 and one team of 4 participants.
The appliers of the SCAMPER method were separated into three teams of 4 and one
team of 5 participants. The statistical power that depends of the samples can be found
in the statistical data validation chapter 3.2.4. In focus of ensuring the anonymity of
every individual person, participants have been attributed to a random number.

Before starting the experiment, the teams were trained in their attributed method. The
problem given to participants was how would you change the billing processes for
utilities to promote energy usage reduction. Participants were asked to generate as
many solutions as possible to the given design task over a period of 35 minutes. The
SCAMPER users were asked to record their ideas under the question category they
considered by using different colors of papers. The 635 users had to write in a specific
color for being able to differentiate the participants later on the solution sheets.

Figure 2 depicts the experimental outline.

Study Design 20

Figure 2 Experimental Outline

The participants have been generating solutions over a period of 35 minutes. The
SCAMPER and Brainstorming groups worked individually, while the 635 group worked
by interacting with their team members as depicted in figure 2. The participants
recorded their ideas in a non-digital fashion on paper. They were allowed to create
bulleted lists, flow charts or process diagrams, graphical illustrations (sketches),
storyboards, or simple texts. The data collection method comprised observational,
experimental and questionnaire components.

The data that has been provided to the researcher is the experimental data in forms of
solutions. All the ideas recorded by the participants were extracted and clustered in
bins of distinctive ideas. Grouping the solution descriptions into bins of distinctive ideas
was done individually by the author.
Study Design 21

3.2 Analysis

Participants ideas are transcribed and evaluated according to three selected ideation
metrics. The ideation metrics used are quantity of ideation, design fixation, and novelty.
The comparison of creativity metrics results is performed between the experimental
groups. Following sub-sections contains the definition of the different creativity metrics
that are used to evaluate the collected data.

3.2.1 Quantity of ideation

In case of quantity of ideation, the definition of Moreno is used [10]. An idea is any form
of statement that contains a way or solution for the transactional design problem to be
solved. The quantity of ideas are divided into two groups: The quantity of total ideas
( ) and the quantity of non-repeated ideas ( ). Equation (1) shows that the two
representations are related to each other.

= = + (1)

The summation of all ideas generated is the quantity of total ideas. This contains the
ideas at different levels, different phases, across experimental groups, and per
participant. Quantity of non-repeated ideas takes just ideas into account that were not
repeated. If a participant stated an idea more than once, it automatically counts as
repeated idea.

3.2.2 Fixation
In the case of fixation, the definition of Moreno is adapted to a single phase [10]. To
assess fixation, a quantity metric based on quantity of repeated ideas is introduced.
There are two different sources for repeated ideas: Repeated ideas within a phase
( ) and repeated ideas between phases ( ). Since the experiment outline contains
only a single phase, the definition of is omitted.

Equation (2) depicts that repeated ideas within a phase is defined as the summation
of all the repeated ideas across all participants that have a frequency () greater than
1.

= =1 =1 1, > 1 (2)
Study Design 22

where is the frequency of repeated ideas for the jth bin and kth participant; b is the
number of bins, and n is the number of participants. A unit is subtracted from the
frequency of repeated ideas to stay liable to the total ideas that are generated.

Using the explained terms, equation (3) defines the mathematical foundation for the
fixation.

= = (3)

This mathematical definition of fixation gives the possibility to perform statistical

comparisons between the different experimental groups.

3.2.3 Novelty
In the case of novelty, the definition of Moreno is adapted to a single phase [10].
Novelty describes the originality or uniqueness of a given solution, compared to other
in the design space possible solutions. Novelty is defined by an approach that uses
only the total quantity of non-repeated ideas as depicted in equation (4).

= =1 , = 1 = 0 (4)

where is the frequency of non-repeated ideas for the jth bin and kth participant; b is
the number of bins, and n is the number of participants; k is the set including the
participants of the groups excluding participant k.

Equation (5) depicts novelty as a function of the space composed of all ideas that were
uniquely generated by a participant for a given method, divided by the total ideas that
were generated.

= (5)

Study Design 23

3.2.4 Statistical Data Validation

The power of statistical tests can be influenced by the significance level, the variability,
the detectable difference between population means, and the sample size [27].
Retrospective power studies were performed to validate the power. Comparisons
between the subgroups within each method applying t-tests would result in power
smaller than 16% for the evaluated metrics and therefore, statistical analysis results
would not be reliable.

However, a solution to increase power lies in adding the subgroups together if they
use the same method and if they are comparable (no statistical significant difference
between the subgroups). To make sure that the teams are comparable ANOVAs were
performed. For a significance level =0.05 the lowest p-value found was p=0.126 (>),
which means teams sharing the same method have no statistical significant differences
and can be merged to form bigger groups of single methods. The new groups can be
seen in the left part of the previous figure 2 and sample sizes are as follows:
Brainstorming 9, 635 19, and SCAMPER 17. The lowest power of the statistical
analysis in the merged groups, was found for quantity with 67% power and a detectable
difference of 3 ideas.

The normality of data was evaluated with the Anderson Darling Normality test. The
data that fits the Gauss distribution have a p-value that is at least higher or equal than
p=0.06 (>). However, the metric fixation is not normally distributed in the case of the
635 and SCAMPER methods (p-value<0.05<). An individual distribution identification
is performed showing that the best fit result in both cases with a 2-parameter
exponential distribution, but with a p-value strictly smaller than 0.01. This means that
the data cannot be mathematically transformed to fit a parametrical distribution.

The data meets equal variance with the smallest p-value being p=0.094 (>). The
comparisons between metrics for the normally distributed data is done with 2-sample
t-tests and equal variance is assumed. For the comparison between the non-normally
distributed data the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test is used.
Study Design 24
Results 25

4 Results

The case-study adequately addresses the research questions and tries to verify the
hypothesis that were mentioned in the research scope chapter 1.2. Through the
different analysis of the collected data an answer should be given to those questions
and one of the two hypotheses should be verified at the end. For that purpose, a
statistical analysis is performed. The following subsections contain the findings of the
analysis.

4.1.1 Quantity of ideation

For being able to calculate fixation and novelty it is necessary to compute the total
quantity of ideas that is the sum of repeated and non-repeated ideas. The total quantity
is equal to 284 ideas, which is composed by a total of 45 repeated ideas, and a total
of 239 non-repeated ideas. The details per experimental condition are depicted in table
3.

Table 3 Quantity of Ideas Generated

Experimental Quantity of non- Quantity of Total Normalized

Group repeated ideas repeated ideas Quantity
Brainstorming 60
48 12 60 = 6.66
9

635 126
99 27 126 = 6.63
19

SCAMPER 98
92 6 98 = 5.76
17

Having a first look at the data gives the impression that 635 and SCAMPER have
increased total quantity of ideation compared to Brainstorming, although it should be
kept in mind that Brainstorming had a much smaller sample size than the other groups.
Dividing the total quantity of generated ideas by the respective sample size leads to
observation that SCAMPER seems to be the method with the fewest number of ideas.
More interesting is the fact that SCAMPER has a higher ratio of non-repeated ideas to
repeated ideas compared to both other methods.

However, a quick test with a one-way ANOVA suggests no statistically significant

difference in total quantity between the methods (F=0.53, p-value=0.591 >). The 2-
sample t-test depicts that there is no statistically significant difference in total quantity
Results 26

between Brainstorming and the 635 method (T=0.03, p-value=0.976 >). No

statistically significant difference is found in total quantity when comparing
Brainstorming to the SCAMPER method (T=0.75, p-value=0.461 >). The comparison
of the 635 with the SCAMPER method in terms of total quantity result also in no
significantly difference (T=0.99, p-value=0.329 >).

4.1.2 Fixation
Fixation is calculated from equation (3). Applying this definition for the experimental
groups is summarized in table 4.

Table 4 Fixation of the Groups

Group Brainstorming 635 SCAMPER

Quantity of
12 27 6
repeated ideas
Total Quantity 60 126 98
Fixation 20% 21.4% 6.1%

A first look on the data points out that the SCAMPER method results in lower fixation
compared to Brainstorming and the 635 method. Both last mentioned methods have
approximately the same amount of fixation.

Performing a one-way ANOVA suggests that there is a statistically significant

difference in fixation between the three groups (F=4.87, p-value=0.012 <). However,
performing an ANOVA is not suited for this application, since the fixation values do not
follow a normal distribution in the case of 635 and the SCAMPER method. The non-
parametric Mann-Whitney test suggests no statistically significant difference in terms
of fixation between the Brainstorming and the 635 method (p-value=0.961 >). On the
other hand, the comparison between Brainstorming and the SCAMPER method results
in statistically significant difference in fixation (p-value=0.046 <). The same is the case
when comparing 635 with the SCAMPER method (p-value=0.015 <).
Results 27

4.1.3 Novelty
Novelty is calculated from equation (5). Applying this definition for the experimental
groups is summarized in table 4. The quantity of non-repeated ideas is computed for
the individual participant in regard to the complete group. This means that an idea is
counted as non-repeated only in the case that no one else within the method had
developed the same idea.

Table 5 Novelty of the Groups

Group Brainstorming 635 SCAMPER

Quantity of non-
12 20 28
repeated ideas
Total Quantity 60 126 98
Novelty 20% 15.9% 28.6%

The overview in table 5 states an increase in novelty for the SCAMPER method
compared to both traditional ones. The brainstorming technique seems to lead to
increased novelty in comparison to the 635 method.

Performing a one-way ANOVA suggests that there is no statistically significant

difference in novelty between the three groups (F=1.52, p-value=0.232 >). This
suggestion is confirmed with the help of the 2-sample t-tests that result in no
statistically significant difference in novelty between Brainstorming and SCAMPER
(T=063, p-value=0.734 >) and no statistically significant difference in novelty between
Brainstorming and 635 (T=0.77, p-value=0.224 >). Between the 635 and the
SCAMPER method no statistically significant difference in novelty is found (T=1.78, p-
value=0.958 >).

Since the novelty metric distribution of the 635 group had been tested to fit a normal
distribution with a p-value=0.057, that is very near to the requested -value=0.05, the
comparison is repeated with the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test. This comparison
leads to no statistically significant difference in novelty between 635 and SCAMPER
(p-value=0.057 >). However, the p-value is very near to the -value, which means
that a trend can be recognized in increased novelty for the SCAMPER group, although
the result is not statistically significant.
Results 28

4.1.4 Outliers
An outlier is a value that lies an abnormal distance from other values in a population
sample [39]. During the Anderson Darling Normality tests three participants had
different performance level than their peers. Such participants were more prolific and
appear as outliers in the data-set. Figure 3 illustrates the normal distribution of total
quantity for the 635 group. The horizontal line represents the number of ideas and the
vertical line represents the frequency. An example of an outlier, that performed a total
of 13 ideas instead of the average 6.6 total ideas, is marked with a star.

Summary Report for total Q

Anderson-Darling Normality Test
A-Squared 0,54
P-Value 0,142
Mean 6,6316
StDev 2,5432
Variance 6,4678
Skewness 0,779971
Kurtosis 0,508851
N 19
Frequency

Minimum 3,0000
1st Quartile 5,0000
Median 7,0000
3rd Quartile 8,0000
Maximum 13,0000
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
4 6 8 10 12 14 5,4058 7,8574
Number of ideas 95% Confidence Interval for Median
5,0000 8,0000
95% Confidence Interval for StDev
1,9217 3,7609

95% Confidence Intervals

Mean

Median

5,0 5,5 6,0 6,5 7,0 7,5 8,0

Figure 3 Total Quantity Normality Fit for 635

The outliers cannot be deleted from the data without justification, since this action
would result in falsification of data. Nevertheless, it is possible to neglect the outliers
in means of understanding which overall contribution they have to the statistical
analysis. Following table 6 gives a summary of the outliers that were found and
neglected for this specific section.
Results 29

Table 6 Outliers Summary

Experimental Outlier Participant Outlier

Group Number Performance
Metric
Brainstorming 13 14 total ideas, 60%
novelty
635 26 13 total ideas
SCAMPER 18 13 total ideas, 80%
novelty

Performing Anderson Darling Normality tests shows that the data fitting a Gauss
distribution have a p-value that is at least higher or equal than p=0.095 (>). However,
the metric fixation is not normally distributed for the 635 and SCAMPER method (p-
value<0.05<).

In terms to compare the metrics between the three groups, one-way ANOVAs were
performed resulting in no statistically significant difference in total quantity (F=0.95, p-
value=0.395 >) and no statistically significant difference in novelty (F=0.97, p-
value=0.388 >). However, there is a statistically significant difference in fixation
(F=4.08, p-value=0.025 <).

Overall the results are identical to the previous statistical analysis, which means that
the outliers do not affect the main results of the analysis.
Results 30
General Discussion 31

5 General Discussion

In order to help designers during their ideation process, design-by-analogy methods

sound promising, but remain relatively new. The research used an available data-set
from an experiment that had been performed at the University of Singapore with
undergraduate students. Main goal was to compare the SCAMPER DbA method to the
traditional methods Brainstorming and 635. To discuss the outcome, the research
questions and the hypothesis are repeated.

Is there any statistical significant difference in ideation metrics outcome for

undergraduate students during the usage of the SCAMPER design-by-analogy
method compared to the Brainstorming and the 635 method?

In terms of total quantity of ideas generated, there is no statistically significant

difference between the three methods. Furthermore, SCAMPER produced slightly less
quantity than the traditional methods. However, a trend in increasing novelty,
compared to the other two methods, can be suggested for the SCAMPER method.
This last mentioned result is not statistically significant, nevertheless the suggestion of
increasing novelty for the SCAMPER method can be made, because the p-value is
very near to the requested -value. Other interesting result is that there is a trend in
decreasing novelty for the 635 method compared to the Brainstorming method. Since
the Brainstorming method represents the control group of the experiment, decreasing
trend in novelty means that the 635 method performed less in novelty than the base-
line. A reason could be related to the type of design problem that had been used
(product service system). More important is that there is a statistically significant
difference between the SCAMPER method and the other two methods for the fixation
metric. The fixation is reduced by a high amount for the SCAMPER group. Additionally,
the conclusions that were drawn for each metric are not affected by the participants
that over performed during the sessions (outliers).

Summarized, no statistically significant difference has been reported for total quantity
and novelty between the 3 groups. Furthermore, in the case of fixation a statistically
significant increase was shown for the SCAMPER method compared to Brainstorming
and the 635 method. However, due to the low sample size and power of 67% the
General Discussion 32

statistical differences cant be demonstrated since the statistical analysis is not robust
enough.

Does the usage of the SCAMPER design-by-analogy method helps to

overcome design fixation for undergraduate students during the ideation stage,
compared to the Brainstorming and the 635 method?

Most outstanding result is the before mentioned statistically significant difference for
the fixation metric when comparing the SCAMPER DbA method with the traditional
ones. SCAMPER appears to help overcoming fixation and seems to assist in creating
innovative solutions. The increased fixation process for the 635 method in comparison
to the SCAMPER method lies in the nature of refining solutions during the circular
interchange with the group members. The bins of ideas underline this assumption,
since 635 had more repeated ideas than the other two methods. Other interesting
result is that there was no statistically significant difference in fixation metric when
comparing Brainstorming with the 635 method. Since Brainstorming is the base-line,
this implies that the learning process of the 635 method does not add a cognitive load.
Nevertheless, the 635 method increases the total quantity of ideas, although it is not
statistically significant.

Summarized, the SCAMPER DbA method helps to overcome design fixation for
undergraduate students during the idea finding stage, compared to Brainstorming and
the 635 method.

Do results obtained match with the available results in the literature review?

A trend in increasing novelty, compared to the other two methods, has been suggested
for the SCAMPER method. This result does not match with the outcome of [38] that
linked the best creative outcome to Brainstorming when comparing with SCAMPER.
Possible reason could be that [38] used a smaller sample size and different metrics
definitions.

The dual nature in terms of fixation for the SCAMPER method that was explained in
[28], was not verified. Other dissimilarity with [28] is that the total quantity of ideas was
General Discussion 33

slightly reduced compared to the control group in this research. Reason for those
contradictions could be that [28] used a service design task rather than a product
service system design problem. Additional reason could be that in [28] participants
were experts, which differ from the undergraduate students (novices) that were used
in this experiment.

There is a statistical significant difference in creativity metrics outcome for

undergraduate students during the usage of the SCAMPER design-by-analogy
method compared to the Brainstorming and the 635 method.

The hypothesis that there is a significant difference in creativity metrics outcome for
undergraduate students during the usage of the SCAMPER design-by-analogy method
compared to the Brainstorming and the 635 method, has been verified. A trend in
increasing novelty has been suggested for the DbA method and a statistically
significant difference for the fixation metric has been shown.

Summarized, the SCAMPER method is no way inferior to Brainstorming and the 635
method and adds further benefits by slightly increasing the novelty and reducing the
fixation. However, due to the low sample size and power of 67% the statistical
differences cant be demonstrated since the statistical analysis is not robust enough.
Nevertheless, distinctive and interesting trends were found that are worth further
exploration.

5.1 Implications and Future Directions

The DbA method SCAMPER appears to help overcoming fixation and seems to assist
in creating innovative solutions. In other words, SCAMPER helps to think out of the
box. This out of the box thinking is urgently needed by current designer to create
innovative solutions that incorporate sustainability.

Distinctive and interesting trends have been presented that are worth further
exploration. Repeating the experiment with a bigger sample size, and thus having an
increase in statistical power, could change the suggested trends into statistically
significant differences, especially for the novelty metric. Additional creativity methods
that differs from the traditional ones, should be encouraged faster to better support
General Discussion 34

current and future designers. Those additional creativity methods do not just sound
promising, their future actually seems bright.
APPENDIX 35

6 APPENDIX

The researcher should ensure that he understands ideation methods and the
difference between them. A literature review does not provide any certainty about the
knowledge of the researcher, which is why teaching material for seven ideation
methods was created. The assumption made is that for being able to teach a specific
topic, the presenter should usually first understand it.

Three of the seven teaching materials, SCAMPER, TRIZ and AskNature, were
presented during a two hours session to engineering science students of the
University of Luxembourg. After every presentation the students were given 15 minutes
to apply the learned material. No data was collected during the teaching sessions.
Overall the teaching procedure seemed to be a success, since most student used the
methods later during their semester project.

The following appendix contains the teaching material of the ideation methods
Brainstorming, 635 and SCAMPER in form of presentation.
APPENDIX 36

6.1 APPENDIX A Brainstorming Teaching Material

APPENDIX 37
APPENDIX 38
APPENDIX 39

6.2 APPENDIX B 635 Teaching Material

APPENDIX 40
APPENDIX 41
APPENDIX 42

6.3 APPENDIX C SCAMPER Teaching Material

APPENDIX 43
APPENDIX 44
References 45

7 References

[1] Ehrlich, P. R., & Holdren, J. P. (1971). Impact of population growth.

[2] Tilman D. (1998) Global environmental impacts of agricultural expansion: The
need for sustainable an efficient practices. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 96(11), 5995-6000.
[3] Peebles D. K. (1997) Statement to government and business leaders. Retrieved
November 27, 2015, from http://www.baltic-region.net/science/factor10.
[4] Panter-Brick, C., Clarke, S. E., Lomas, H., Pinder, M., & Lindsay, S. W. (2006).
Culturally compelling strategies for behaviour change: a social ecology model
and case study in malaria prevention. Social science & medicine, 62(11), 2810-
2825.
[5] Mont, O. K. (2002). Clarifying the concept of productservice system. Journal of
cleaner production, 10(3), 237-245.
[6] Baines, T. S., Lightfoot, H. W., Evans, S., Neely, A., Greenough, R., Peppard, J.,
Roy, R., Shebab, E., Braganza, A., Tiwari, A., Alcock, J. R., Angus, P. J., Bastl, M.,
Cousens, A., Irving, P., Johnson, M., Kingston, J., Lockett, H., Martinez, V.,
Michele, P., Tranfield, D., Walton, I. M., & Wilson, H. (2007). State-of-the-art in
product-service systems. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 221(10), 1543-1552.
[7] Knig T. (2015) Product Planning and Marketing for Engineers: Lecture within
the Master Program Master of Science in Engineering Sustainable Product
Creation. Faculty of Science & Technology, Luxembourg.
[8] Manzini E., & Vezzoli C. (2003) A strategic design approach to develop
sustainable product service systems: examples taken from the
environmentally friendly innovation Italian prize. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 11(8), 851-857.
[9] Beuren, F. H., Ferreira, M. G. G., & Miguel, P. A. C. (2013). Product-service
systems: a literature review on integrated products and services. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 47, 222-231.
[10] Moreno, D. P., Hernandez, A. A., Yang, M. C., Otto, K. N., Hltt-Otto, K., Linsey,
J. S., Wood, K. L., & Linden, A. (2014). Fundamental studies in design-by-
References 46

analogy: A focus on domain-knowledge experts and applications to

transactional design problems. Design Studies, 35(3), 232-272.
[11] Gentner, D. (1987). Mechanisms of Analogical Learning (No. UIUCDCS-R-87-
1381). ILLINOIS UNIV AT URBANA DEPT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE.
[12] Holyoak J. K., Thagard P. (1996) Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought. MIT
Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA.
[13] Richland, L. E., Morrison, R. G., & Holyoak, K. J. (2006). Childrens development
of analogical reasoning: Insights from scene analogy problems. Journal of
experimental child psychology, 94(3), 249-273.
[14] Goldstein, M. E. (2003). A generalized acoustic analogy. Journal of Fluid
Mechanics, 488, 315-333.
[15] Ward T. B. (1998) Analogical Distance and Purpose in Creative Thought: Mental
Leaps Versus Mental Hops. Advance in Analogy Research: Integration of Theory
and Data from Cognitive, Computational, and Neural Sciences. New Bulgarian
University, Sofia, Bulgaria.
[16] Gentner, D., Holyoak, K. J., & Kokinov, B. N. (2001). The analogical mind:
Perspectives from cognitive science. MIT press.
[17] Casakin, H., & Goldschmidt, G. (1999). Expertise and the use of visual analogy:
Implications for design education. Design Studies, 20(2), 153-175.
[18] Breitman, K. K., Barbosa, S. D., CasANOVA, M. A., & Furtado, A. L. (2007,
November). Conceptual modeling by analogy and metaphor. In Proceedings of
the sixteenth ACM conference on Conference on information and knowledge
management (pp. 865-868). ACM.
[19] Dunbar, K. (1997). How scientists think: On-line creativity and conceptual
change in science. Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures
and processes, 4.
[20] Weisberg, R. W. (2009). On out-of-the-box thinking in creativity. Tools for
innovation, 23-47.
[21] Dahl, D. W., & Moreau, P. (2002). The influence and value of analogical thinking
during new product ideation. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), 47-60.
[22] Wilson, J. O., Rosen, D., Nelson, B. A., & Yen, J. (2010). The effects of biological
examples in idea generation. Design Studies, 31(2), 169-186.
References 47

[23] Fu, K., Chan, J., Cagan, J., Kotovsky, K., Schunn, C., & Wood, K. (2013). The
meaning of near and far: the impact of structuring design databases and
the effect of distance of analogy on design output. Journal of Mechanical
Design, 135(2), 021007.
[24] Purcell, A. T., & Gero, J. S. (1996). Design and other types of fixation. Design
Studies, 17(4), 363-383.
[25] Purcell, A. T., Williams, P., Gero, J. S., & Colbron, B. (1993). Fixation effects: Do
they exist in design problem solving?. Environment and Planning B, 20, 333-
333.
[26] Linsey, J. S., Tseng, I., Fu, K., Cagan, J., Wood, K. L., & Schunn, C. (2010). A study
of design fixation, its mitigation and perception in engineering design faculty.
Journal of Mechanical Design, 132(4), 041003.
[27] Moreno, D. P., Yang, M. C., Hernndez, A. A., Linsey, J. S., & Wood, K. L. (2015).
A Step Beyond to Overcome Design Fixation: A Design-by-Analogy Approach. In
Design Computing and Cognition'14 (pp. 607-624). Springer International
Publishing.
[28] Moreno, D. P., Yang, M. C., Hernandez, A., & Wood, K. L. (2014, May). Creativity
in Transactional Design Problems: Non-Intuitive Findings of an Expert Study
Using Scamper. In International Design Conference, Human Behavior and
Design, Dubrovnik, Croatia (pp. 569-578).
[29] Ishibashi, K., & Okada, T. (2006). Exploring the effect of copying
incomprehensible exemplars on creative drawings. In Proceedings 28th Annual
Conference Cognitive Science Society, Vancouver, BC, Canada July (pp. 26-29).
[30] Fricke, G. (1996). Successful individual approaches in engineering design.
Research in Engineering Design, 8(3), 151-165.
[31] Ball, L. J., Ormerod, T. C., & Morley, N. J. (2004). Spontaneous analogising in
engineering design: a comparative analysis of experts and novices. Design
Studies, 25(5), 495-508.
[32] Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: an overview. Design studies, 25(5), 427-
441.
[33] Viswanathan, V., & Linsey, J. (2012, August). A study on the role of expertise in
design fixation and its mitigation. In ASME 2012 International Design
 References 48

Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in

Engineering Conference (pp. 901-911). American Society of Mechanical
Engineers.
[34] Savransky, S. D., & Stephan, C. (1996). Triz: The methodology of inventive
problem solving. The Industrial Physicist, 2(4), 22-25.
[35] Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (2013). Engineering design: a systematic approach.
Springer Science & Business Media.
[36] Linsey, J. S., Markman, A. B., & Wood, K. L. (2012). Design by analogy: a study
of the WordTree Method for problem re-representation. Journal of Mechanical
Design, 134(4), 041009.
[37] Silverstein D., Samuel P., DeCarlo N. (2009) The Innovators toolkit. John Wiley
& Sons Inc, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA.
[38] Chulvi, V., Gonzlez-Cruz, M. C., Mulet, E., & Aguilar-Zambrano, J. (2013).
Influence of the type of idea-generation method on the creativity of solutions.
Research in Engineering Design, 24(1), 33-41.
[39] NIST/SEMATECH agency (2003) What are outliers in the data?. Retrieved
December 11, 2015, from http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/.

View publication stats