Concept Exploration Through

Gregory Smith
Design Engineer
Michelin Americas Research Corporation
Morphological Charts:
e-mail: greg.smith@us.michelin.com
An Experimental Study
Jenkins Richardson
Product Engineer This paper presents two design experiments to evaluate the impact of the size and shape
E-Z-Go (A Textron Company) of a morphological chart used to identify promising concepts within those charts. In each
e-mail: jlrichardson@textron.com experiment, students designed either a burrito folder or a pet feeder. The first experiment
used two rectangular morphological charts; one vertically oriented with more functions
Joshua D. Summers and one horizontally oriented with more means. The second experiment used four mor-
Associate Professor phological charts, two charts similar to the first experiment and two nearly square with a
Clemson University similar number of functions and means. Participants from similar populations were en-
e-mail: jsummer@clemson.edu rolled and similar protocols were followed to align the results for comparison. A compar-
ison of the significant aspects of each experiment emphasized the problem, the
Gregory M. Mocko participants, the morphological charts employed, and the experimental procedures. Fur-
Assistant Professor
thermore, a critique of the two experiments is provided and joint conclusions are drawn.
Clemson University Experimental results suggest that reducing information in the morphological charts, such
e-mail: gmocko@clemson.edu
as the number of functions, enhances the likelihood for developing higher quality inte-
grated concept solutions. While accurate for most configurations, this benefit is limited in
that the largest sized chart failed to show worse results compared with smaller counter-
parts. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4006261]

1 Motivation functions than means. Adding functions to a morphological chart

The engineering design process consists of conceptual, embodi-
ment, and detail design phases [1–3]. In conceptual design, the prin-
ciple solution is created; in embodiment design, the physical layout
of the solution is determined. During detail design, the materials
are specified, the production systems are finalized, and the lower
level dimensional issues are resolved [4]. This work, involving
morphological charts, focuses on the conceptual design phase.
The conceptual design phase ideally follows a linear process but
typically is realized through a highly iterative one. The design prob-
lem is elucidated and function decomposition follows. Solutions for
each subfunction are identified and combined to create a potential
integrated conceptual design. Multiple designs are evaluated, and a
principle solution, or solution set, is selected, which is further
explored in the embodiment and detail design phases. This research
is limited to the combinatorial activities in conceptual design that
are supported by these morphological charts [1,5,6].
Idea generation tools may be classified as either intuitive or logi-
cal [7]. Intuitive idea generation tools attempt to promote creativity,
while logical idea generation tools follow a prescribed set of quasi-
automated steps [7]. Morphological charts are defined as intuitive
idea generation tools [7]. Specific guidelines regarding morphologi-
cal chart construction and use to create high quality design concepts
are currently unavailable in the literature. Here, the authors detail
the development of the guidelines for purposes of using morpholog-
ical charts more effectively as logical idea generation tools. Though
previous work suggests a plethora of possibilities that cause evalua-
tion and selection difficulties, no specific guidance or concrete stud-
ies support this assertion [8]. As such, the authors examine the
quality of integrated conceptual design solutions generated by
undergraduate mechanical engineering students in two design
experiments. Results show a statistically significant difference in
the quality of concepts generated from different sizes and shapes of
the morphological charts. Specifically, a chart with more means
than functions produces better concepts than the one with more
failed to improve the results.
A morphological chart is a table of functions and solution
means for each function. Normal convention entails listing func-
tions in a column in the left side of the table and solution means
to the right of each function. A generic morphological chart for
four functions of a burrito-folding device is shown (Table 1) per
this convention. Various terms exist for these solutions; Dym and
Little use the term means [5], Pahl and Beitz use working princi-
ple [4], and Suh [6] use the term design parameters. Here, the
authors use means to refer to solutions for specific functions. In
this morphological chart, a verb–noun pair (e.g., “receive tortilla”)
represents each function. A solution phrase (e.g., “table” or
“locating plate”) represents each mean.
1.1 Uses. Morphological charts, also known as concept com-
bination tables [9] or function–means tables [5], are design tools
for generating integrated conceptual design solutions for design
problems. Tables are constructed by decomposing design prob-
lems by listing all the critical functions in a column. The means
for each function are listed in the rows to the side (Table 1). Com-
bining one means for each function produces an integrated con-
ceptual design solution. Repeating this process with every
possible combination in the morphological chart generates an ex-
haustive list of conceptual design solutions. Thus, morphological
charts provide a sense of the size of the design space [5].
The creation of a morphological chart involves compiling lists
of desired functions, all at the same level of detail [5]. For each
function, a list of possible means is generated, each typically at
the same level of abstraction, though recent work suggests meth-
ods to accommodate varying levels of abstraction [10]. Morpho-
logical chart size is calculated by multiplying the number of
means for each function. For a morphological chart with functions
F1, F2, F3 … Fn, where each function has a number of means (M1
for F1, M2 for F2 … Mn for Fn), the number of integrated concep-
tual design solutions is determined by

Contributed by the Tribology Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL Y

n
OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received May 27, 2010; final manuscript Number of solutions ¼ Mi (1)
received March 12, 2011; published online April 24, 2012. Assoc. Editor: Yan Jin. i¼1

Journal of Mechanical Design Copyright V

C 2012 by ASME MAY 2012, Vol. 134 / 051004-1

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 1 Sample morphological chart Table 4 Number of integrated conceptual design solutions in
three different sized morphological charts
Function Means
Number of means Number of
Receive tortilla Table Locating plate Work on top of a for each function possible solutions
stack of tortillas
Receive filling Hopper Packets Tube Chart shown in Table 1 3, 3, 2, and 2 36
Combine Dispense Wrap tortilla Adding one new function 3, 3, 2, 2, and 2 72
materials filling onto tortilla around filling with two means
Fold tortilla Spatula Hinged work surface Adding two means to 3, 5, 2, and 2 60
an existing function

Table 2 Compatibility matrix for two functions

Receive filling
Hopper Packets Tube
Combine materials Dispense filling onto tortilla OK OK
Wrap tortilla around filling OK ? NO
If there are three solutions for function “a,” two for function
“b,” and five for function “c,” then the total number of concepts is
30 (3  2  5 ¼ 30). For a filled rectangular morphological chart,
with n functions where the number of means for each function is
the same (M1 ¼ M2 ¼ M3 ¼ … ¼ Mn ¼ M), an upper bound of the
size of the design space is MN.
To use a morphological chart, individual solution concepts are
created by combining one solution means from each function. The
solution list size, which quickly grows quite large when additional
means and functions are added to the morphological chart, can be
reduced by eliminating impractical concept means, to prune the
initial chart. Impractical combinations of allowable means are
also eliminated from combinatorial consideration, thereby reduc-
ing the number of design solutions [1,5,9,11]. One such pruning
approach, compatibility matrices, is proposed in Ref. [4]. The
compatibility matrix in Table 2 evaluates the suitability of com-
bining concept means for two selected functions. The total num-
ber of compatibility matrices required is 2n where n is the number
of functions identified. Here, a tube combined to receive the filling
interferes with wrapping the tortilla around the filling and should
not be considered in the integration step.
Morphological charts are used in an open design space and
when the designer wishes to use a methodical process to generate
concepts to explore this space. While different idea generation
techniques can be used to populate the means within the charts,
there is no systematic approach for exploring this extensive design
space. Defining guidelines to explore and refine this space is the
objective of this research.
1.2 Advantages and Disadvantages. As with all design
tools, morphological charts have several advantages and disadvan-
tages that influence their use. Advantages include the elucidation
of unexpected pairings of features [9], the creation of new con-
cepts otherwise not considered by designers [5], and capability for
encompassing the entire design space. Morphological charts used
as design tools are limited in that (i) number of integrated concep-
tual design solutions can grow quite extensive [5], (ii) not all com-
binations generated are good solutions to design problems [5], and
(iii) absence of a method to choose promising solutions for further
evaluation.
As one example of potential design space size, recall the burrito
folder morphological chart in Table 1. Here, there are three means
for the function “receive tortilla,” three for the function “receive
filling,” two for the function “combine filling,” and two for the
function “fold tortilla.” Therefore, the total possible combination
OK
is the product of 3, 3, 2, and 2, which equals 36 (Table 3).
As shown, the list of possible combinations quickly grows quite
large [5]. Adding another function to a morphological chart multi-
plies the number of design solutions by the number of means
added with that function. For example, adding another function
with two means to the chart shown in Table 1 doubles the Qnumber
of integrated conceptual design solutions from 36 to 72 ( (means
per function) ¼ 3  3  2  2  2 ¼ 72). Alternatively, adding
means to existing functions in a chart increases the number of sol-
utions. For example, adding two new means to the “receive
filling”
Q function increases the number of solutions to 60
( (means per function) ¼ 3  5  2  2 ¼ 60), as illustrated in
Table 4. Thus, it is clear that adding identical numbers of informa-
tion units (cells within the morphological chart) varies the total of
information represented in the entire table. Understanding this
variance is the crux of this research.
While these advantages and disadvantages are illustrated, few
studies have systematically explored the justification of these
assertions.
1.3 Computational Automation. There have been several
attempts to automate the morphological chart exploration, recog-
nizing the combinatorial challenge of exploring the design space.
For example, the interactive approach of Bryant et al. [12] is a
hybrid of previously developed tools: an automated morphologi-
cal search [13] and a computational concept generator [14]. The
automated morphological search is a web-based tool through
which users populate morphological charts using information in
the design repository [15]. The computational concept generator
employs a user-defined functional description of a product. This
function block diagram is converted to a matrix describing inter-
functional relationships. Using a function-component matrix
(FCM) and a design-structure matrix (DSM) from design reposi-
tory (DR) information, a list of solutions is created, filtered, and
presented to the user. By combining the characteristics of these
two tools, an interactive morphological search is created, with
both the solution accessibility of the web-based morphological
chart search and the connectivity information in the computational
concept generator. The major limitation of this method is the
amount of design knowledge currently entered in the DR.
Tiwari et al. [16] used a Genetic Algorithm to obtain solutions
(combinations of means) from a morphological chart. Here, the
means combination process is automated via representation as a

Table 3 List of possible combinations

Number Concepts Receive tortilla Receive filling Combine materials Fold tortilla

1 1–1–1–1 Table Hopper Dispense filling onto tortilla Spatula

2 2–1–1–1 Locating plate Hopper Dispense filling onto tortilla Spatula
… … … … … …
36 3–3–2–2 Work on top of stack Tube Wrap tortilla around filling Hinged work surface

051004-2 / Vol. 134, MAY 2012 Copyright V

C 2012 by ASME Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 5 Comparison of experiments
Experiment #1
Design problem Device to prepare a burrito
Evaluation criteria Low cost (9) Easy to clean (9) Low cost (7)
(weight) Easy to clean (3)
Low number of parts (1)
Number of evaluation 3 4
levels
Suggested evaluation values 9 (good) 3 (fair) 1 (poor) 9 (very good) 6 (good) 3 (ok) 1 (poor)
Evaluation method Decision matrix
combinatorial multi-objective optimization problem. Multiple cri-
teria used to judge each combination determine that which is opti-
mal for each criterion. Positive outcomes include a minimal
computational effort, use of a multitude of information from the
designer, quick feedback to the designer from many candidate sol-
utions, and consistent result events if uncertainty is in the inputs
(i.e., a range of values rather than a single value). The limitations
to this approach include the amount of parameters requiring input,
the lack of representation of nonbehavioral characteristics (i.e.,
aesthetics), a consistency of inputs (multiple designers introduce
input variations), and the obtained solutions may not be globally
optimal.
Weas et al. [17] discuss using the analysis of interconnected de-
cision areas (AIDA) to combine solution principles (means).
AIDA is a systematic approach for managing complex urban plan-
ning problems. This work describes an experiment with under-
graduate students who applied the AIDA principles to a design
problem. Here, AIDA utilizes an interaction matrix that helps
designers to identify compatible sets of solution principles. Posi-
tive outcomes entailed the automated exploration of the design
space, allowed designers to quickly view the effects of design
decisions, and the creation and evaluation of unique design con-
cepts. Limitations include only allowing one performance metric
per iteration (multiple performance criteria with user-defined
weights being more efficient) and only one binary compatibility
value (a scale being more appropriate).
Others have tried to develop automation tools to help explore
design space [18–20], yet these are not directly related to mor-
phological charts. While each approach provides tools for
exploring the design spaces within morphological charts, they
cannot exhaustively explore the solution concepts. The objective
here is to understand how to reduce the design space to improve
navigation without sacrificing the solution quality. Thus, guide-
lines are needed to help designers learn to construct morphologi-
cal charts that effectively explore the design space represented
therein.
2 Experimental Method
The hypothesis addressed in this research is: Designers can cre-
ate higher quality integrated conceptual design solutions using
morphological charts with fewer integrated conceptual design sol-
utions. More specifically, designers in a certain time can explore
more easily a morphological chart with less combinatorial infor-
mation than one with combinatorial possibilities. Previous studies
suggest that designers are challenged by the design space and that
reducing it would enhance exploration [21–23]. Using the strategy
of Shah et al. [24], the authors found that while many aspects
regarding the use of morphological charts are worthy of study,
examining the impact of morphological chart size regarding the
quality of integrated concepts generated can yield the best results.
Other items affecting the quality of integrated concepts include
the amount of time to consider the morphological chart, designer
experience, and the presence of known good or bad solutions in
the charts, all of which are beyond the scope of this research.
Journal of Mechanical Design
Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Experiment #2 Justification for change
Device to feed a cat or dog Possibility of overlap of
participants between two experiments
(overlap did not occur)
Reduce impact of weightings
Low number of parts (1)
Greater granularity
Reduce impact of weightings
Not applicable
Research was limited to the morphological chart size and shape
as related to the number of functions and means per function in
the charts that designers control in construction. The number of
functions and the number of means per function influence the
number of integrated concepts produced by the chart. Additional
impact areas, such as participants creating charts or participants
with varying degrees of experience, were not investigated to avoid
introducing experimental variation, and complicate statistical
analysis without increasing the participant numbers. A data com-
parison of each experiment is summarized in Table 5.
2.1 Design Problem. The design problems for the two
experiments were developed to create an innovative solution.
Each problem entailed creating a burrito folder and an automatic
pet feeder. The design problem was taken from an assignment in
the course from a previous semester to ensure that it was suitable
for the participants’ level of knowledge and expertise. By review-
ing project reports from the previous assignment, the functional
decomposition and the morphological chart were created using
means extracted from the students’ work. The automatic pet
feeder problem was designed based upon positive results of the
first experiment. In each problem, existing solution implementa-
tions were not obvious to any participant. The problems were
developed such that they required multiple functional operations
and in domains requiring no expertise or familiarity beyond that
of a sophomore mechanical engineering student. Postexperiment
interviews with participants found no unease about the lack of
requisite expertise. This design problem has been used in two sub-
sequent research experiments [25–28].
2.2 Morphological Charts. Various sized morphological
charts were created. As seen in Tables 6 and 7, experiment one
examined two sized “rectangular” morphological charts with sig-
nificant disparity between functions and means. This was the first
attempt to determine experimentally the effect of amount of com-
binatorial information on the quality of solutions generated.
Though the number of information units (total number of means)
within each chart was held constant at 15, they were distributed to
either three or five functions. The authors note that the means for
populating both charts were quite similar as the chart size and the
design space orientation were of interest, not individual means
within the charts. Means in both charts are shaded, indicating
overlap. For common functions (fill tortilla, fold burrito, and dis-
pense burrito), three means were common and distributed
throughout the charts to prevent bias associated with mean selec-
tion position. Means selected in each chart was done randomly to
prevent inclusion of high quality potential means in the easier
navigated smaller chart. Because the purpose is to compare chart
size, each has different means.
Because results suggested a possible effect, in the second
experiment additional relationships between morphological chart
sizes were studied. Four chart sizes (Tables 8 through 11) tested
the combinations of two different function numbers and two
MAY 2012, Vol. 134 / 051004-3
 Table 6 Experiment #1 morphological chart #1 (3 3 5)

Function Means

Store and Extrude through Pour from hopper Transfer with spoon Unwrap individual serving Sprinkle in powder form
dispense filling tube from sack from bucket size and drop then rehydrate
Fold burrito Plate under tortilla is Spatula lifts the edges Flexible work Work-surface edges lift up and Tortilla punched through
hinged and folds of the tortilla surface rolls up slide toward center hole in work surface
Dispense burrito Slide on conveyor belt Slide down chute Push off to side Drop from elevated area Grab with mechanical hand

Table 7 Experiment #1 morphological chart #2 (5 3 3)

Function Means

Store filling Multiserving package Bulk filled hopper Single serving package
Position tortilla Physical stop Visual marker Work on top of a stack of tortillas
Fill tortilla Extrude filling through tube Pour filling onto tortilla Spoon filling onto tortilla
Fold burrito Spatula lifts edges Roll into tube Punch through opening in table
Dispense burrito Gravity Conveyor belt Mechanical hand

Table 8 Experiment #2 morphological chart #1 (4 3 7)

Means

Function 1 2 3 4 5
Fill bowl Screw Rotary pocket Conveyor belt Solenoid Piston
Regulate food Weight Windup–spring Fixed volume container Fluid displacement Trip laser
Signal (to fill bowl/ inform owner) Weight Lever in bowl Camera/image processing Proximity sensor Radar
Power source Battery Gravity Air pressure—compressed air Windup–spring Engine

Table 9 Experiment #2 morphological chart #2 (4 3 5)

Means

Function 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Fill bowl Screw Rotary pocket Conveyor belt Solenoid Piston Blower Robotic arm
Regulate food Weight Windup—spring Cam Fixed volume Fluid displacement Plunger Trip laser
container
Signal (to fill Switch Weight Lever in bowl Camera/image Proximity sensor Radar Pressure sensor
bowl/inform owner) processing
Power source Battery Gravity Air pressure—compressed air Plug–AC Windup—spring Flywheel Engine

Table 10 Experiment #2 morphological chart #3 (8 3 5)

Means

Function 1 2 3 4 5
Fill bowl Screw Rotary pocket Conveyor belt Solenoid Piston
Quantity of food Weight Butterfly valve Fixed volume container Wheel—fixed volume Trip laser
Regulate time Cam Pendulum Windup—spring Reversible chemical reaction Fluid displacement
Record keeping Analog–dial Graduation etched on Dial-on dispenser Measure and display weight Rotary counter
transparent (moves if dispenser
container moves!)
Signal owner to Buzzer (electronic) Light SMS/email Emit odor Play recorded
fill the reservoir message
Signal itself to fill bowl Weight Lever in bowl Camera/image processing Proximity sensor Radar
Error check Capacitance Laser LVDT Electric contact—bowl Weight
and dispenser
Power source Battery Gravity Air pressure—compressed air Windup—spring Engine

different means numbers. Here, the means of the largest chart
were populated and pruned, without considering the quality of
means to fit the smaller charts. Essential functions were retained
upon pruning.
The second experiment used morphological charts with several
concepts several magnitudes larger than the first experiment (625
to over 5 million possible combinations). Table 12 shows morpho-
logical chart comparison of experiments one and two.
2.3 Participants. Participants in both experiments were en-
rolled in the same second year mechanical engineering course
(Table 13) with none participating in both experiments, while the

051004-4 / Vol. 134, MAY 2012 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 11 Experiment #2 morphological chart #4 (8 3 7)

Means

Function 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Fill bowl Screw Rotary Conveyor Solenoid Piston Blower Robotic
pocket belt arm
Quantity Weight Butterfly Cam Fixed Wheel— Plunger Trip laser
of food valve volume fixed volume
container
Regulate Timer— Cam Pendulum Bimetal— Windup— Reversible Fluid
time microprocessor heater spring Chemical displacement
reaction
Record Analog— Graduation Barometer Gauge stick Dial on Measure and Rotary
keeping dial etched dispenser (moves if display counter
on transparent dispenser moves!) weight
container
Signal owner Buzzer Light Vibrate SMS/email Emit odor Ring bell Play recorded
to fill the (electronic) (mechanical) message
reservoir
Signal itself to Switch Weight Lever Camera/image Proximity Radar Pressure sensor
fill bowl in bowl processing sensor
Error check Hall effect Capacitance Laser LVDT Electric contact— Weight Photo detector
bowl and dispenser
Power source Battery Gravity Air pressure– Plug—AC Windup—spring Flywheel Engine
compressed air

Table 12 Morphological chart comparison

Experiment #1 Experiment #2
(burrito folder) (pet feeder)

Number (and sizes) of morphological charts 2 (3  5, 5  3) 4 (4  5, 4  7, 8  5, 8  7)

Method used to change the number of functions Change level of decomposition Add or remove specific functions
Method used to change the number of means Add or remove specific means
Number of possible concepts from smallest morphological chart 125 625
Number of possible concepts from largest morphological chart 243 5,764,801

Table 13 Participants

Experiment #1 Experiment #2
(burrito folder) (pet feeder)

Participants’ class Sophomore level mechanical engineering course in design and kinematics
Number of class sections 2 1
Number of participants 25 29
Minimum experience with morphological charts Morphological charts lecture to class before the experiment
Morphological charts review at start of experiment
Additional experience with morphological charts Unknown
Number of repeat participants Unlikely due to the time separation (1 year) between experiments

relevant characteristics remained identical. Although the first
experiment encompassed two sections of the same class with dif-
ferent professors, both performed equivalently and results were
considered as a single group (see Sec. 4.1 for proof of statistical
equivalence). As the second experiment encompassed a single
class section, pooled population analysis was not required. The
minimum experience with morphological charts was normalized
in which students were required to build charts interactively.
2.4 Procedure. Both experiments proceeded similarly
(Table 14). Each participant was provided with a prepopulated
morphological chart and solution form, in which participants
listed either eight (first experiment) or ten (second experiment)
integrated conceptual design solutions and rated them against pro-
vided criteria. The prepopulated morphological chart was used to
control the variability of possible creativity within the students.
The only related activity tested here was the integration of means-
to-form solutions.
For the first experiment, the evaluation criteria were low cost
(9), easy to clean (3), and number of parts (1). For each solution,
the participants were instructed to score their integrated solution
against these criteria as either good (9), fair (3), or poor (1). It was
determined that low evaluation concepts (poor, 1) for the highest
weighted criteria (low cost, 9) never achieved similar scores to
high evaluation concepts (good, 9) regardless of the evaluations
for the other criteria (number of parts and easy to clean). An inter-
mediate evaluation level (6) was established and low cost-7 and
easy to clean-9 criteria were reweighted. To correct this problem
in experiment two, evaluation criteria and levels were adjusted to
reduce the weighting impact, and changed to easy to clean (9),
low cost (7), and number of parts (1). Evaluation solution values
were very good (9), good (6), ok (3), and poor (1). Participants
using other values were not excluded and these nonstandard val-
ues were accepted as is. Participant ratings and criteria weightings
were used in a decision matrix to determine final scores for each
solution. From this matrix the top three integrated solutions,

Journal of Mechanical Design MAY 2012, Vol. 134 / 051004-5

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 14 Experimental procedure

Experiment #1 Experiment #2
(burrito folder) (pet feeder)

Morphological hart training in advance
Morphological chart training on day of experiment
Time allowed to generate concepts
Number of concepts required to generate
Number of concepts chosen for judging
Method for accommodating a tie in
individual scoring of concepts
Judge distribution system
Judge evaluation method
Lecture on morphological charts presented class before the experiment
Review of morphological charts presented at start of experiment
30 min
8 10
3 (or more if a tie existed) Exactly 3
Evaluate all tied concepts. Participant score A set of exactly three concepts that included the
determined using Eq. (3) highest ranked concepts was selected
Concepts divided equally among five judges Concepts divided among two
judge panels of three judges
Evaluate the concepts using identical decision matrix and weightings as participants

defined and evaluated by participants, were collected for further
analysis by judges.
Participants were directed as to how to record and score their
chosen integrated conceptual design solutions. After the introduc-
tion, they were allowed 30 min to develop and evaluate their
design solutions, and instructed to form the highest quality con-
ceptual combinations. The time limit for the concept generation
phase was fixed by the need to conduct the experiment without
exceeding the allotted time. To choose the number of concepts for
the first experiment, participants generated and evaluated eight
concepts in less than 30 min. Only one participant failed to gener-
ate the full number of concepts; therefore, the second experiment
required more concepts to encourage more novel solutions.
3 Analysis
3.1 Jury. Each experiment employed a different system for
judging the integrated concepts; five individual judges or two
groups of three individual judges. All judges were drawn from the
second graduate students in the CEDAR (Clemson Engineering
Design Application and Research) Lab. To limit the time invested
by each individual judge, results were divided amongst judges for
each experiment. In the first experiment, each judge was assigned
approximately 60% of the concepts generated from each chart.
Each integrated concept was also evaluated by three of the five
judges. While cumbersome, a uniform distribution of integrated
concepts among the judges was achieved. Intrarater consistency
found no bias in judging [29].
The second experiment used a simpler method for assigning
integrated concepts to the six judges. The collection of integrated
concepts was divided in half, with each evaluated by a three judge
panel working individually. While easier to establish, it was nec-
essary to elucidate any consistency between the two judging pan-
els to determine the validity of combining evaluations from both
panels. An insufficient overlap in one morphological chart size
prevented a full intra-rater analysis. The use of a system similar to
the first experiment to spread the concepts evenly among judges
may have mitigated the impact of differences between panels.
Care must be taken when assigning evaluations with the ideal
having each judge evaluate all integrated concepts. The logistical
concern here is that a corresponding growth in the number of so
evaluations requires each judge to make that many more. Any
assignment of evaluations among judges must minimally impact
statistical analysis of the results. The additional effort to create
evaluations in the first experiment eliminated the need to deter-
mine if the judging could be pooled for statistical analysis, while
reducing the uncertainty of the results.
3.2 Score Calculation. Once the students had judged their
solutions, judges evaluated them accordingly. A final score was
assigned by averaging the three scores provided by the panels,
which were used to evaluate participant-generated solutions. For
the first experiment, each participant was assigned the score from
the average of the top three solutions identified. In cases of no
clearly identified third place, third place group scores were aver-
aged to create a composite third score. This score was averaged
with first and second place scores (see Eq. 2).
solution3a þ solution3b
solution1 þ solution2 þ
score ¼ 2 (2)
3
For the second experiment, three concepts were selected that
best represented the participant, including the three highest ranked
concepts. Each judge ranked concepts using the same evaluation
levels as participants. The final participant scores were the aver-
age of nine scores, consisting of three judges’ scores for each of
the three selected concepts. The authors note that other evaluation
scales may be used with different results. This exploration of the
role of evaluation scores and quality is beyond the scope of this
study. A best practice baseline for creating a differentiated con-
cept set using the geometric scale was also used [30].
The choice of evaluation criteria and their respective weights
influenced the integrated concepts created by the participants. To
ensure that all participants were working toward a common goal,
they were required to score concepts against these criteria instead
of a personal preference. This experiment is used to study only the
process of exploring the design space to generate integrated con-
cepts. While evaluation of the integrated concepts is not the focus
of this experiment, creating a consistent set of criteria for the par-
ticipants and judges reduced the variation between what partici-
pants identified as the best-integrated concepts without these
specific criteria.
4 Results
4.1 First Experiment Results. Of thirty participants in the
first experiment, four misunderstood the directions, creating their
own means for each function instead of making selections from
the morphological chart. They were excluded from the analysis.
Another failed to rank all of their integrated conceptual design
solutions and was excluded also. As such, it can be inferred that
there was ample time to complete tasks and that the scope of the
design problem was acceptable.
At the end of the exercise, all handouts were collected. The
three highest rated design solutions from each participant were
combined into a list of design solutions for evaluation. Absent no
clear group of three or if there were a tie for third place, extra
design solutions were added, and the list was purged of duplicate
solutions. This list of the three highest rated concepts covered
14% and 25% of the design spaces within the morphological
charts (Table 15). The number of unique combinations generated
for the two charts were roughly equivalent (31 and 33). Further,
nearly half of student defined concepts were repeated by others in
each morphological chart (56% and 47%). The major difference
between the design space explorations was the actual coverage of

051004-6 / Vol. 134, MAY 2012 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 15 Amount of design space evaluated by participants Table 17 First experiment quality score comparison

Morphological chart 35 53 Morphological chart #1 #2

Number of participants 12 13
Number of possible 125 243
Concept combinations
Number of unique Quantity 55 70
Concept combinations % of possible concepts 44% 29%
Generated by participants
Number of unique Quantity 31 33
Concept combinations % of possible concepts 25% 14%
In set of “top 3” % of generated concepts 56% 47%
the total concepts explored; only one-quarter of the concepts were
evaluated in the first chart and one-seventh were evaluated in the
second.
Results from the two sections in the first experiment were
pooled. To ensure that mixing the class sections did not affect the
analysis, an ANOVA statistical analysis was performed to deter-
mine the “p-value.” When the p-value was larger than a, the
means of the analyzed groups were likely identical; when the
p-value was less than a, the means were identical [31]. Considera-
tion was an 80% confidence level, or a ¼ 0.20. Any p-value of
0.10 or less indicated a statistically significant relation [32]. A
p-value of greater than 0.10, but less than or equal to 0.20 indi-
cated a likely relation [33].
The means for the assessed quality of Chart #1 from each sec-
tion had a p-value of 0.93 (Table 16); the means for the assessed
quality of Chart #2 from each section had a p-value of 0.44. The
total mean scores for Chart #1 and Chart #2 were not equivalent,
showing a significant difference in the quality of solutions that
each chart created.
The 3 function  5 mean morphological chart scoring produces
higher quality concepts than the 5 function  3 counterpart,
Table 17, indicating that any improvement in the quality of
explored concepts must involve reducing the number of functions
before reducing the number of means.
4.2 Second Experiment Results
4.2.1 Quantity and Variety of Concepts Developed. Using the
first experiment, a second experiment with 29 participants further
explored the effect of function reduction on design space explora-
tion in morphological charts. As before, all handouts were col-
lected. A set of the three highest rated design solutions were
identified, purged of duplicates, and combined into solutions for
evaluation. The list of the three highest rated concepts covered
0.00024% to 1.3% of the design space (Table 18).
The numbers of unique concepts evaluated were similar for the
four morphological chart sizes (19, 21, 24, and 18), encompassing a
small percentage of combinations. Analysis of the concepts in vari-
ous configurations (18–24) found no significant improvement or
deficiency in ability to create different concepts (variety). Given
identical time constraints, objectives, and charts with different in-
formation, the designers explore the space similarly. From this
quantity and variety of concepts, design skills remain affected by
the addition of means/functions to morphological charts regarding
the creation of unique concepts. This leaves the analysis of the
impact on quality based on morphological chart content.
Number of participants 12 13
Section 1 mean 59.9 51.1
Section 2 mean 59.3 46.0
Combined mean 59.6 47.9
Standard deviation of combined group 11.8 10.9
4.2.2 Evaluation of Quality of Generated Concepts. Are the
Judging Panels Objective? One difficulty in evaluating engineer-
ing design methods regarding quality is subjectivity in measure-
ment, partially mitigated via judging panels of graduate students,
the results of which are shown in Table 19. Here, the values repre-
senting statistical analysis are not the geometric evaluation scores
of 1–3–6–9, but composite and averaged scores for complete con-
cepts. Thus, scoring yields continuous scores, not the discrete and
sparse scores of individual evaluations. Generated concepts were
also provided to panels as simply integrated concepts and sorted
randomly to avoid bias regarding slight increases in the level of
detail in different number of functions. An unbalanced sample set
of panel reviewed data was the result. As evident in Table 19,
while the means from both judge panels are not equal for each
chart, the significant statistical overlap suggests a similarity if not
equivalency between panels.
Traditional student t-test and ANOVA was done under assump-
tions of normality (tested with t-test), independence, and equality
of variance. Therefore, further t-test and ANOVA is necessary to
determine statistical equivalency between panels. One performed
t-test assumed unequal variance, suggesting that the means were
equal between the two judging panels for the 4  7 and the 8  5
chart sizes. The 4  5 chart size had nearly equal means, and simi-
lar ANOVA results from the panel scoring for four different sized
morphological charts (Table 20). These results clearly show that
the judges evaluated only two of the four sizes of morphological
charts identically (4  7 and 8  5). For the other two chart sizes,
one chart was evaluated inconsistently (4  5) whereas another
yielded inconclusive results due to a lack of judging overlap
(8  7).
Table 21 shows the comparisons. First, all charts were com-
pared with combined panels. Then, for cases in which one or both
panels lacked a p-value greater than a, the scores for judge panels
#1 and #2 were compared. For cases relying upon the 8  7 size
chart, no test was done with judge panel #1 autonomously, in that
only one participant was evaluated by this panel at this size. The
similarity of differences between the t-test and the ANOVA ne-
cessitate further analysis exclusively with ANOVA. Note that
very small sample sizes necessitate future inclusion of additional
exercise replications with larger sample pools.
An examination of individual chart scores determined the fol-
lowing relationships for the relative concept quality generated
from each morphological chart. In Fig. 1, the charts are in relative
position, with an axis of improving integrated conceptual design
quality from left to right. Vertical position in these figures is insig-
nificant. Each chart is represented by a grouping of squares; height
represents the number of functions and width represents the num-
ber of means. For example, the 4  7 morphological chart is four
squares tall and seven squares wide. Figure 1 shows the complete

Table 16 Summary of ANOVA results: comparing quality of means generated for 3 3 5 and 5 3 3 morphological charts

Groups p-value Evaluation

Chart #1 (3F  5M) Chart #2 (5F  3M) 0.018 Means are not equal
Section 1 Section 2 0.42 Means are equal
Chart #1 for section 1 only Chart #1 for section 2 only 0.93 Means are equal
Chart #2 for section 1 only Chart #2 for section 2 only 0.44 Means are equal

Journal of Mechanical Design MAY 2012, Vol. 134 / 051004-7

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 18 Amount of design space evaluated by participants

Morphological chart size (F  M) 45 47 85 87 All 4 function All 8 function

Number of participants 8 7 8 6 15 14
Number of possible concept combinations 625 2401 390625 5764801 2401 5764801
Number of unique concept combinations Quantity 19 21 24 18 38 42
in set of “top 3” % of generated concepts 1.3% 0.29% 0.0020% 0.00010% 0.62% 0.00024%

Table 19 Second experiment raw participant scores as averaged within panels

Morphological chart size (F  M)

45 47 85 8 7

Number of participants 8 7 8 6
Judging panel #1 129.8 115 119.7 104.3
127.7 114.8 86.8
114.8 91.6 85.4
109.3 84.6 84.4
79.2
Judge panel #1 mean 120.4 101.5 91.1 104.3
Judge panel #1 std 9.94 15.73 16.24 NA
Judging panel #2 121.8 112.1 104.6 113.1
112.3 106.9 92.7 103.8
101.3 87.1 60.3 100.3
84.3 93.3
92.4
Judge panel #2 mean 104.9 102.0 85.9 100.6
Judge panel #2 std 16.1006 13.19141 22.92691 8.472131
Combined mean 112.7 101.7 89.1 101.2
Standard deviation of combined group 14.9 13.5 17.5 7.7

Table 20 Evaluation of judge panel scoring with t-test and ANOVA

Chart p-Value (t-test, two tail) p-value (ANOVA) Evaluation

45 0.16 0.15 Groups means might not equal

(Panels need to be examined separately)
47 0.96 0.96 Groups means are equal (Panels can be combined)
85 0.75 0.71 Groups means are equal (Panels can be combined)
87 N/A N/A Not evaluated due to lack of overlap between judge panels
(Panels need to be examined separately)

Table 21 Evaluation of morphological chart size relationships

Combined judges Judge panel #1 Judge panel #2

a b
Four functions p-value 0.16 0.09 0.81c
(4  5/4  7) Evaluation Means are not equal Means are not equalb Means are equalc
Five means p-value 0.01b 0.02b 0.25c
(4  5/8  5) Evaluation Means are not equalb Means are not equalb Means are equalc
Eight functions p-value 0.14a d
0.22c
(8  5/8  7) Evaluation Means are not equala d
Means are equalc
Seven means p-value 0.93c d
0.85c
(4  7/8  7) Evaluation Means are equalc d
Means are equalc
Rectangular p-value 0.11a d
0.61c
(4  5/8  7) Evaluation Means are not equala d
Means are equalc
Nearly square p-value 0.15a e e

(4  7/8  5) Evaluation Means are not equala e e

a
0.10 < p  0.20.
b
p  0.10.
c
0.20 < p.
d
There were insufficient data for the 8  7 size to evaluate Judge panel #1.
e
It was unnecessary to evaluate individual judge panel relationships here. Panels were consistent for both sizes (see above).

set of notional relationships between the four morphological
charts.
4.2.3 Rectangular Morphological Charts. Consider the verti-
cal (4  7) and horizontal (8  5) charts above, because both judge
panels scored them consistently (Table 20), and they can be com-
pared based upon combined scores. ANOVA comparison showed a
difference in the means of the two groups (Table 21). A comparison
of average scores for each chart shows that the vertical chart pro-
duced higher scores than the horizontal chart. Therefore, reducing

051004-8 / Vol. 134, MAY 2012 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Fig. 1 Morphological charts arranged by participants’ quality
scores as assessed by panel
the number of functions and increasing the number of means pro-
duced higher quality concepts.
4.2.4 Morphological Charts With Five Means. Consider two
morphological charts with five means per function; one with twice
as many functions as the other (four and eight – Table 20).
Because the 8  5 size chart scored consistently between the two
panels and the 4  5 size did not, ANOVA comparison between
both is impossible from the combined judge panel scores. The
ANOVA test for the combined judge panels showed that the
means were not the same (Table 21). Means differed in charts for
judge panel #1 and were identical for judge panel #2. An average
of scores, shows no improvement between sizes. Therefore, reduc-
ing the number of functions at a low level of means may improve
the quality of concepts generated. This agrees with the inferences
associated with the first experiment that reducing the number of
functions facilitates exploration of the design space.
4.2.5 Morphological Charts With Eight Functions. Consider
the two morphological charts with eight functions but with different
number of means per function (five and seven means). As previously
indicated, the 8  5 size morphological chart was scored consistently
by the two judge panels while the 8  7 size did not have sufficient
data to determine if the two judge panels were consistent. A statisti-
cally significant ANOVA comparison between the two sizes cannot
be made only based on the combined judge panel scores. The
ANOVA test for the combined groups showed that the means dif-
fered (Table 21). For judge panel #2, there was no difference
between chart sizes. A statistically significant comparison cannot be
made between these two sizes. Based on the average scores alone,
there does appear to be an improvement between the two sizes.
Therefore, adding means at a high level of functions may improve
the quality of concepts generated with morphological charts. In this
case, increasing the amount of information can improve the quality
of concepts generated. This runs contrary to the other findings where
information reduction leads to higher quality concepts.
4.2.6 Morphological Charts With Four Functions. Consider
the two morphological charts with four functions but with differ-
ent number of means per function (five and seven means). From
Table 20, one can see that the 4  7 size morphological chart was
scored consistently by the two judge panels, while the 4  5 size
was not. A statistically significant ANOVA comparison between
the two sizes cannot be made based on the combined judge panel
scores. The ANOVA test for the combined groups showed that the
means were not the same (Table 21). For judge panel #1, the
means were also not found to be the same; however, for judge
panel #2, there was no difference found between the two chart
sizes. A statistically significant comparison cannot be made
between these two sizes. Based on the average scores alone, there
Journal of Mechanical Design
Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
does appear to be an improvement between the two sizes. There-
fore, removing means at a low level of functions may improve the
quality of concepts generated with morphological charts.
4.2.7 Morphological Charts With Seven Means. Consider the
two morphological charts that have seven means per function with
one chart having twice as many functions as the other (four and
eight functions). As previously indicated, both panels consistently
scored the 4  7 size chart while the 8  7 size lacked significant
data to determine the consistency of scoring. The ANOVA test
for combined groups showed that the means were identical
(Table 21), as with judge panel #2. Though both combined and
the individual judge panel evaluations match, there is no obvious
change between the two sizes. Therefore, adding functions at a
high level of means does not appear to change the quality of con-
cepts generated with morphological charts. Thus, there appears to
be a point where information reduction fails to influence posi-
tively or negatively the quality of concepts generated.
4.2.8 Nearly Square Morphological Charts. Consider the
nearly square morphological charts of 4  5 and 8  7. As previ-
ously indicated, the 4  5 size morphological chart was not scored
consistently by the two judge panels. The 8  7 size morphologi-
cal chart had only a single participant evaluated by judge panel
#1, so it was not possible to determine if the two judge panels
evaluated this group consistently. A statistically significant
ANOVA comparison between the two sizes cannot be made only
based on the combined judge panel scores. The ANOVA test for
the combined groups showed that the means were not the same, as
is shown in Table 21. Judge panel #2 found no difference in chart
size. A statistically significant comparison cannot be made
between these two sizes. Based on the average scores alone, there
does appear to be an improvement between the two sizes. There-
fore, reducing the number of means and functions together may
improve the quality of concepts generated with morphological
charts. In this manner, information reduction once again leads to
easier exploration of the design space thereby resulting in higher
quality integrated solutions.
5 Discussion
The procedures for the two experiments are similar. The differ-
ences in procedure represent improvements made in an effort to
perform better analysis on the relationships between the number
of means and the number of functions. The conclusions that can
be jointly drawn from the two experiments are that (1) a chart
with more means than functions produces better concepts than
that of more functions than means and (2) adding functions to a
morphological chart failed to improve results. It is important to
note that these conclusions are applicable to entry-level engineers
lacking design experience as opposed designers with significant
experience. In addition, the scope of this research is limited to cer-
tain sizes of morphological charts and the conclusions drawn may
not be applicable to large-scale morphological charts or projects.
The hypothesis presented was that morphological charts that
contained fewer possible integrated conceptual designs produce
higher quality integrated concepts as this represents a smaller
design space to explore. From the experimental results, the hy-
pothesis was not accepted in all cases. For example, during the
second experiment, the morphological chart with the most inte-
grated conceptual designs (eight functions by seven means per
function) did not perform the worst. However, the shape of the
morphological charts did impact the quality of concepts gener-
ated. Moreover, it appears that information reduction based on
function yields higher quality concepts.
Two identified relationships have yielded better concepts;
charts with more means than functions and charts with fewer func-
tions, the latter profoundly affecting what functions to include in a
morphological charts. By knowing that detailed functional decom-
position does enhance the selection of promising design solutions
from a morphological chart, designers can save time and effort
MAY 2012, Vol. 134 / 051004-9
 when decomposing the problem initially. Though results indicate
that reducing the number of functions improves the success of this
task, the existence of a lower limit of the functions yielding prom-
ising integrated conceptual design solutions has yet to be clearly
identified.
Results show how the conceptual quality from participants
affects the morphological chart size and shape. The chart with
which most students struggled was that with many functions and
few means per functions. As such, students should limit functional
decomposition of a problem and conduct means generation when
using morphological charts during design. Two evaluation techni-
ques (judge panels and judge pools) were used to evaluate the
concepts of use in further study that builds on this research.
5.1 Design Guidelines. There are two requisite guidelines for
morphological charts. Designers should expand the design space by
expanding morphological chart width. They must then focus on the
primary and critical functions when constructing morphological
charts as their addition fails to improve the quality of the integrated
concepts. With these guidelines, and supporting experimental evi-
dence, novice and student engineer designers, can effectively
explore the qualitative design spaces within these charts.
5.2 Future Work. Future work entails improving concepts
generated with morphological charts. An understanding of the
influence on chart size on results can be used to help designers
using morphological charts develop better means for function and
overall concept. The absence of predictability of study results in
the literature requires creating surveys or interviews to create de-
signer guidelines for morphological charts. Such survey and inter-
view results can elucidate improvements in the quality of
concepts generated. Incorporating other design tools into morpho-
logical charts, specifically function structures, to improve the
quality of generated concepts is currently being explored [25,26].
References
[1] Pahl, G., and Beitz, W., 1996, Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach,
Springer-Verlag, New York.
[2] Otto, K., and Wood, K., 2001, Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engi-
neering and New Product Development, Prentice-Hall, NJ.
[3] Ullman, D., 2002, The Mechanical Design Process, Pearson Education, Inc.,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
[4] Pahl, G., and Beitz, W., 1966, Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach,
Springer-Verlag, New York.
[5] Dym, C., and Little, P., 2000, Engineering Design: A Project-Based Introduc-
tion, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
[6] Suh, N., 2001, Axiomatic Design: Advances and Applications, Oxford Univer-
sity Press, New York.
[7] Shah, J., 1998, “Experimental Investigation of Progressive Idea Generation Tech-
niques in Engineering Design,” ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferen-
ces and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Atlanta, GA.
[8] Whiting, C. S., 1958, Creative thinking, Reinhold, New York.
[9] Ullrich, K., and Eppinger, S., 2000, Product Design and Development,
McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.
[10] Teegavarapu, S., Snider, M., Summers, J. D., Thompson, L., and Grujicic, M.,
2007, “A Driver for Selection of Functionally Inequivalent Concepts at Varying
Levels of Abstraction,” J. Design Res., 6, pp. 239–259.
051004-10 / Vol. 134, MAY 2012
Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
[11] Aygun, M., 2000, “Comparative Performance Appraisal by Multiple Criteria
for Design Alternatives,” Archit. Sci. Rev., 43, pp. 31–36.
[12] Bryant, C., Bohm, M., Stone, R., and McAdams, D., 2007, “An Interactive
Morphological Matrix Computational Design Tool: A Hybrid of Two Meth-
ods,” ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and
Information in Engineering Conference, Las Vegas, NV.
[13] Bohm, M., Vucovich, J., and Stone, R., 2005, “Capturing Creativity: Using a
Design Repository to Drive Concept Innovation,” ASME Design Engineering
Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Confer-
ence, Long Beach, CA.
[14] Bryant, C., McAdams, D., Stone, R., Kurtoglu, T., and Campbell, M., 2006, “A
Validation Study of an Automated Concept Generator Design Tool,” ASME
Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in
Engineering Conference, Philadelphia, PA.
[15] Bohm, M., Stone, R., and Szykman, S., 2003, “Enhancing Virtual Product Rep-
resentations for Advanced Design Repository Systems,” ASME Design Engi-
neering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering
Conference, Chicago, IL.
[16] Tiwari, S., Teegavarapu, S., Summers, J., and Fadel, G., 2007, “Automating
Morphological Chart Exploration: A Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm
to Address Compatibility and Uncertainty,” Int. J. Product Dev., 9, pp.
111–139.
[17] Weas, A., and Campbell, M., 2004, “Rediscovering the Analysis of
Interconnected Decision Areas,” Artif. Intell. Eng. Des Anal. Manuf., 18, pp.
227–243.
[18] Jin, Y., and Li, W., 2007, “Design Concept Generation: A Hierarchical Coevo-
lutionary Approach,” ASME J. Mech. Des, 129, pp. 1012–1022.
[19] Koch, P. N., Allen, J. K., Mistree, F., and Barlow, A., 1998, “Facilitating Con-
cept Exploration for Configuring Turbine Propulsion Systems,” ASME J.
Mech. Des, 120, pp. 702–706.
[20] Barnum, G. J., and Mattson, C. A., 2010, “A Computationally Assisted Method-
ology for Preference-Guided Conceptual Design,” ASME J. Mech. Des, 132,
pp. 121003–121009.
[21] Adelson, B., 1989, “Cognitive Research: Uncovering How Designers Design;
Cognitive Modeling: Explaining and Predicting How Designers Design,” Res.
Eng. Des., 1, pp. 35–429.
[22] Newell, A., 1990, Unified Theories of Cognition, First Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA.
[23] Koch, P., Allen, J., Mistree, F., and Mavris, D., 1997, “The Problem of Size in
Robust Design,” ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, Sacra-
mento, CA, Papr No. DETC97DAC3983.
[24] Shah, J. J., Kulkarni, S. V., and Vargas-Hernandez, N., 2000, “Evaluation of
Idea Generation Methods for Conceptual Design: Effectiveness Metrics and
Design of Experiments,” ASME J. Mech. Des, 122, pp. 377–384.
[25] Richardson, J., Summers, J. D., and Mocko, G. M., 2011, “Function Represen-
tations in Morphological Charts: An Experimental Study on Variety and Nov-
elty of Means Generated,” presented at the 21st CIRP Design Conference,
Daejeon, South Korea.
[26] Richardson, J., 2010, “Incorporating Function Structures into Morphological
Charts: A User Study,” MS Thesis, Clemson University, Clemson, SC.
[27] Ramachandran, R., 2012, “Understanding the Role of Functions and Interaction
in the Product Design,” Clemson University, Clemson, SC.
[28] Ramachandran, R., Caldwell, B., and Mocko, G., 2011, “A User Study to Eval-
uate the Function Model and Function Interaction Model for Concept Gener-
ation,” ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers in
Engineering Conference, Washington, DC.
[29] Smith, G., 2007, “Morphological Charts: A Systematic Exploration of Qualita-
tive Design Space,” MS Thesis, Clemson University, Clemson, SC.
[30] Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., and Grote, K. H., 2007, Engineering Design:
A Systematic Approach, 3rd. ed., Springer-Verlag, London.
[31] Daniel, W., and Terrell, J., 1995, Business Statistics, Houghton Mifflin, Co Bos-
ton, MA.
[32] Ruder, J., and Sobek, D., 2007, “An Experiment on System Level Design,” J.
Eng. Design, 18, pp. 327–342.
[33] Wetmore, W., Summers, J., and Greenstein, J., 2010, “Experimental Study of
Influence of Group Familiarity and Information Sharing on Design Review
Effectiveness,” J. Eng. Design, 21, pp. 111–126.
Transactions of the ASME