Idea Generation Exploring a CoCreation Methodology Using Online Subject Matter Ex[Erts

8/8/2019 Idea Generation Exploring a CoCreation Methodology Using Online Subject Matter Ex[Erts

1/154

Approved by

Adviser Graduate Program, Industrial, Interior, and Visual

Communication Design

Masters Examination Committee:

R. Brian Stone, Adviser

Dr. Elizabeth B.-N. Sanders

Professor James W. Arnold

IDEA-GENERATION:EXPLORING A CO-CREATION METHODOLOGY USING ONLINE SUBJECT

MATTER EXPERTS, GENERATIVE TOOLS, FREE ASSOCIATION, AND

STORYTELLING DURING THE PRE-DESIGN PHASE

A Thesis

Presented in Partial Fulllment of the Requirements for

The Degree Master of Fine Arts in the

Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

Teresa Ung

*****

The Ohio State University

2009


2/154

2009 All rights reserved.c


3/154

ii

ABSTRACT

This research explores a new methodology for idea-generation with multi-disciplinary

design teams demonstrating alternative ideation techniques and brainstorming facilitation.

Innovators may use this methodology to enhance their companys enthusiasm toward a

project, link and generate different ideas together, or train newcomers in a team-building

exercise. Researchers can use this dynamic moderator approach that involves careful

timing to conduct a compact brainstorming session. Design educators may challenge

their teaching styles with various parts of this methodology to encourage their students to

practice thinking more broadly and gathering out-of-the-box ideas into one narrative by

using the compiled, tested techniques in this study.

Current idea-generation methods range from traditional methods such as focus groups,

to non-traditional social networking platforms such as GUNGEN used in Japan. However,

little to no information details an approach that leverages a combination of social

networking channels such as wiki communities to co-create with design teams, while

combining generative tools and free association for storytelling during the pre-design

phase.

Six separate workshops were facilitated at the respective job sites of the participants.

Each group was comprised of six to eight professionals screened and recruited through

a contact person who also participated in the hour-long ideation workshop. A total of


4/154

iii

twenty-nine participants tested the methodology.

The results reveal novel associations with mundane objects, which add imagination

and cohesion to these objects when formulated into storytelling. As a vehicle for collaborative ideation, this methodology is intended for group motivation and idea

enhancement in a cost-effective way. It is aimed to benet those who are thought leaders,

and regularly work with ideas to innovate, manage, strategize, educate, moderate,

research, and design, without the time or money to go on a creative retreat.

A qualitative research approach was applied to this exploration. Successive workshops

followed an experiential-feedback strategy that built on top of modications determined

by the moderators experience from each previous workshop. Data was collected by video

capture, audio documentation, and post-workshop questionnaires. More specically, the

methodology began with an immersion phase where online subject matter experts from

wiki communities interacted with the design team. This was followed by a one-hour

workshop consisting of four parts: part one was a group discussion on wikis; part two

was an individual activity practicing free association; part three was a simulation of eld

research; and part four consisted of the group brainstorming activity and storytelling.

In the end, the ndings revealed distinctive patterns between company culture and the

range of ideas generated by the design teams more familiar with the participatory methods

of ideation. The following discussion describes how this methodology may be applied to

various stages of the design process as a co-creation method and a powerful aid to design

problem solving.


5/154

iv

For Stan.


6/154

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My deepest appreciation goes to my Graduate Studies Committee: Dr. Elizabeth B.-

N. Sanders for her inspiration, guidance, and intellectual enthusiasm; R. Brian Stone, my

Adviser, for weathering the good, the bad, and the uglynot letting anything stand in my

way; and James W. Arnold for challenging my direction and offering a fresh perspective

to make the completion of this work possible.

I want to thank the Department of Design for providing support and a rewarding

teaching opportunity to aid my graduate work.

Most of all, I extend my deepest gratitude to Stanley Lina mentor and an old friend.

Thanks for being my eyes and ears when I need it most!


7/154

vi

VITA

2001-2005................

2005-2006................

2006-present..............

FIELD OF STUDY

Major Field: Industrial, Interior, and Visual Communication Design

B. A. Emphasis in Graphic Design, Minor in PhotographySan Jos State University

Freelance designer San Francisco, CA

Graduate Teaching AssociateThe Ohio State University, Department of Design


8/154

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dedicat ion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vita. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

List of Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapters

0 Preface

0.1 Purpose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0 .2 Audience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0 .3 Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 Introduction

1.1 Overview: Research scope.... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .

1 .2 Object ive. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 Background

2.1 Introduction: Inspirations.. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

ii

iv

vi

vii

xi

xii

xv

xix

xx

1

2

6


9/154

viii

2.2 Market research: Common brainstorming approaches. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.3 Idea-generation: Innovate even with no money.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

2.4 Co-creation: Applied in the pre-design phase.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

2.5 Social networking and crowdsourcing... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..2.6 Free association: Using semantic knowledge.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

2.7 Field research simulation: Scavenger hunt.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

2.8 Storytelling.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.9 Generative tools research: Inspirations for materials.. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .

2.10 Application to the design process: Intended case and conditions.. . . . . . . .

2.11 Operational denitions.. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .

3 Methodology

3.1 Introduction: Process.. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ..

3.2 Timeline of workshop events.. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

3.3 Workshop approach: Modifying based on precedence.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

3.4 User denition.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.5 Recruitment sampling: Criteria and script.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

3.6 Finding contact persons: Who they were.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

3.7 Pilot Study.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.8 Immersion for participants: Activity to stir questions and discussions.. .

3.9 Pre-workshop checklist: For moderator.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

3.10 Moderator script: Timing and improvisation.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

3.11 Workshop site selection.. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .

3.12 Workshop equipment and materials.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

3.13 Workshop site, equipment, and materials set-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .

3.14 Individual activity: Timing and Associative cues. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8

12

13

1314

16

18

19

19

20

24

29

30

30

30

32

32

32

34

34

34

36

40

40


10/154

ix

3.15 Field study simulation: Scavenger hunt.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

3.16 Group activity: Timing and moderator participation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .

3.17 Cats Cradle: Storyteller steps out... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

3.18 Group activity role play: Storyteller and explainer. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .3.19 Questionnaires. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.20 Pamphlet and gift cards.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

3.21 Post-Workshop moderator tasks.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

3.22 Sorting data: video, audio, questionnaires, and notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .

4 Results

4.1 Introduction: What to expect.. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ..

4.2 Timelines of workshop events: How it unfolded.. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .

4.3 Workshop approach: What was modied.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

4.4 Recruitment samples: Who participated.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

4.5 Finding the contact persons: Who they were and what they provided. . . .

4.6 Pilot Study.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.7 Immersion for participants: Questions and answers. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.8 Moderator script evolution: Reasons and responses. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.9 Workshop site selection.. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .

4.10 Workshop equipment and materials: Documenting modications.. . . . . . . .

4.11 Workshop site, equipment, and materials set-up: Variations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.12 Individual activity: Documentation.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

4.13 Field study simulation/Scavenger hunt: Object selections.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.14 Group activity: Collages.. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

4.15 Cats Cradle: Timing and responses.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

4.16 Group activity role play: Selection and responses.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .

41

42

43

4448

50

50

51

52

52

54

60

61

61

61

63

63

64

65

65

68

68

72

73


11/154

x

4.17 Analysis I: Questionnaires .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

4.18 Analysis II: Collages & material usage .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

4.19 Analysis III: Company cultures................................................

4.20 Pamphlets and gift cards: Responses.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..4.21 Post-workshop moderator tasks: Observations and documentations.. . . . . .

4.22 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5 Conclusion

5.1 Benets: Flexibility of methodology.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

5.2 Guidelines: For moderator.. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...

5.3 Materials: Selectivity based on design process... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

5.4 Immersion activity: Managing time and increasing feedback.. . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.5 Individual activity: Script modication for future use.. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .

5.6 Group activity: Script modication for future use.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .

5.7 Limitations of study.. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .

5.8 Directions for future research... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

6 Next Steps

6.1 Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.2 Further Explorations: Application to the design process.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.3 Extended Data Analysis.. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .

6.4 Continued Investigation: Wiki immersion activity. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix: Supplementary Information......................................................

References Cited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

74

79

89

9292

92

94

94

95

97

97

98

98

99

101

103

112

113

115

124


12/154

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1: Questionnaire results spreadsheet WS 2...........................................




Table 5: Material usage count................................................................

75

76

77

78

88

xi


13/154

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1: Parnes Creative Problem Solving Model versus the Design Process. . . . . . . . .

Figure 2: Workshop Process.. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .

Figure 3: Workshop process: Wiki immersion... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

Figure 4: Workshop process: Wiki Discussion.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Figure 5: Workshop process: Individual Activity.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

Figure 6: Field research simulation.. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .

Figure 7: Workshop process: Group activity.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Figure 8: Workshop process: Questionnaire.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

Figure 9: Intended timeline.... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. ..

Figure 10: Recruitment Script...............................................................

Figure 11: Discussion Guide.................................................................

Figure 12: Moderators Script and Timing.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Figure 13: Materials-Images left to right: Individual Activity, Group Activity. . . . . . . . . .

Figure 14: Materials-Tray set up.. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ..

Figure 15: Materials-Wiki set up .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .

Figure 16: Materials-Room set up.... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .

Figure 17: Questionnaire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 18: Pamphlet gift card................................................................

Figure 19: Workshop process: Revised durations... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

xviii

24

24

25

26

26

27

28

28

30

32

34

36

37

37

38

48

49

52

xii


14/154

Figure 20: Workshop duration and changes.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Figure 21: Materials tray 1.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 22: Materials tray 2.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 23: Materials tray 3.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Figure 24: WS 3 participants exploring materials...........................................

Figure 25: WS 5 people during the group collaging activity...............................

Figure 26: Contacts & participants.. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ..

Figure 27: WS 4 caf and lounge area.. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .

Figure 28: Workshop site congurations.....................................................

Figure 29: WS 2 Individual activity-6 participant samples.................................

Figure 30: Group activity collage-WS 1.....................................................




Figure 34: Group activity collageWS 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 35: Storytelling WS 3..................................................................

Figure 36: All Workshops-Strongly Agree Analysis I.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Figure 37: All Workshops-Strongly Agree Analysis II.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Figure 38: All Workshops-Strongly Disagree Analysis I.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

Figure 39: All Workshops-Strongly Disagree Analysis II..................................

Figure 40: All Workshops-Neutral Analysis I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 41: All Workshops-Neutral Analysis II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 42: Company Proles for WS 1-5....................................................

Figure 43: Company Personalities & Characteristics: WS 1-5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 44: Types of Jobs (Ulwick, 2005).....................................................

Figure 45: Recapscenario 3. The last step of free association using symbolic objects..

54

55

55

5657

58

59

63

65

66

69

70

70

71

71

73

82

83

84

85

86

87

90

91

105

109

xiii


15/154

xiv

Figure 46: Recruitment script (alternate).. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Figure 47: Moderator script..................................................................

Figure 48: Guidelines for ideation workshop part I... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

Figure 49: Guidelines for ideation workshop part II.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .Figure 50: Guidelines for ideation workshop part III... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

Figure 51: Immersion instructions part I....................................................

Figure 52: Immersion instructions part II... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Figure 53: Moderators pre-workshop checklist.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

116

117

118

119120

121

122

123


16/154

xv

PREFACE

0.1 Purpose

My study is one of exploration.

Exploration, according to Princeton Universitys Wordnet dictionary is to travel

for the purpose of discovery; a careful systematic search; or systematic consideration.

My original exploration was to nd different techniques for generating a lot of ideas.

Traversing these techniques, I found myself repurposing these separate methods into

one unique combinationnot only for idea generation, but also to corporate the idea of

an enjoyable experience. My new methodology explored idea generation through co-

creation using online subject matter experts, generative tools, and free association in

storytelling for the pre-design phase. While the individual techniques adapted into this

study essentially had been proven by researchers as viable means for individual and group

ideation, this study explores them in an entirely new combination and format.

My investigation was also a qualitative one. Qualitative research was dened in

Moderating To the Max as collecting data, reporting facts, obtaining reactions, and

seeking for what is. In qualitative research, convergent thinking is active. Convergent

thinking is using judgment, evaluation, and deliberation in reviewing data (Bystedt, Lynn,

Potts, 2003). The role I took as both the researcher and moderator of the workshops was

to use my judgment, evaluation, and deliberation to identify the current state of design

team collaborations, push that limit, and then document the responses of that process to


17/154

xvi

note any discoveries that resulted from this methodology.

Another part of my investigation was the pursuit of idea generation, or ideation.

Ideation is about what could be, or the process of eliciting responses or ideas (Bystedt,

Lynn, Potts, 2003), which was the role of the participants. The main characteristic of the participants role was divergent thinking, which involved deferral of judgment,

proposing the unusual, striving for quantity. (Bystedt, Lynn, Potts, 2003) By combining

the qualitative and exploratory nature of the methodology, the process resulted in an

ideation workshop.

In setting up the workshop, I began learning about the contexts of online subject

matter experts, generative tools, free association, and storytelling and then combining

these studied methods into one sixty-minute ideation session. Five separate design teams

participated in my on-site workshop, which comprised of six to eight professionals who

were unique to their companys design needs and had prior experience working as a team.

The professionals who participated had various backgrounds. There were marketers,

engineers, writers, designers, researchers, and company executives who had shown

interest in this methodology. These different professionals were employees of companies

that provided services ranging from insurance to design research. They participated and

gave feedback about their experiences of the methodology. With each groups feedback,

successive workshops incorporated modications made from the moderators ongoing

observational analyses.

Data analysis was in accordance to Dr. Elizabeth B.-N. Sanders (MakeTools,

LLC) personal guidance. My tasks included transcribing the sessions, organizing data,

documenting observations, and detecting common threads across the companies that

participated. Data were also analyzed using the basic coding process described in John W.

Creswells Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches,

2nd Edition . Coding, Creswell denes, is the process of organizing the materials into


18/154

xvii

chunks or segments of text before bringing meaning into the information. It involves

taking data or pictures gathered during data collection, segmenting sentences, or images

into categories, and labeling those categories with a term. Because each workshop was

modied based on feedback from the preceding workshop, the nature of this qualitativeresearch was not designed as an experiment. Therefore, the results of this exploration

might not provide denitive results, but instead introduced new areas of discovery in

generating ideas and different techniques in solving problems. (See Chapter 6 Next

Steps.)

Where does this t in the Creative Problem-solving Process? Idea generation is only

a part of this process. A problem well-dened is a problem half-solved. (Bystedt,

Lynn, Potts, 2003) Therefore an effective creative problem-solving model, or a model

addressing the following broad processes is the whole picture: dening the problem

or challenge, generating ideas, and planning for action. (Parnes, 1981) The current

methodology incorporates the rst two processes, however the planning for action is

found in the sections for Further Explorations (Chapter 6.2 Further Explorations). In the

rst process, participants in this study were given rapid scenarios to generate metaphors

that were used as design constraints to frame their problem. The second process consisted

of generating ideas for possible solutions in a group activity. Participants were asked to

use generative tools to nish the sentence, My intelligent machine or tool will look and

feel like this and illustrating their ideas in a collage.

In contrast to the Parnes model of Creative Problem-solving Process, divergence

is the rst step of the Design Process. In the Design Process, creative problem solving

begins with exploring without constraints in the divergence phase. Ideas are then ltered

through the next step of the Design Process called the transformation phase, which

introduces the constraints surrounding the problem. This second phase also introduces

some divergence within the new boundaries. The last phase of the design process is


19/154

xviii

convergence. This is similar to Parnes planning for action. Filtered ideas are combined

with possible new ideas from the transformation phase and selected for prototyping or

possible directions to pursue the solution. The Design Process and the Creative Problem-

solving Process both provide a general sequence for creative problem solving; however this methodology focuses on the pre-design phase of generating ideas. The pre-design

phase occurs before the design process. Individuals concern themselves with exploring

and generating a plethora of ideas from the same frame of reference using Edward De

Bonos Random Word technique as inspiration. However, the random word is not selected

from De Bonos list, but from the individual activity that prompts the participants to

generate words based on scenarios. This methodology serves as a qualitative research

vehicle to solicit professional feedback on ideation techniques, and as a tool for

generating a lot of new ideas.

divergence transformationexplore without constraints lter with

constraints

convergence solution to prob-lem; prototyping;testing

dene problem or challenge generate ideas plan for action

Figure 1: Parnes Creative Problem Solving Model versus the Design Process


20/154

xix

0.2 Audience

To become a successful developer of new products it appears that one must rst

become a successful developer of new ideas. (Sowry, 1989) This exploration is intended

for individuals invested in developing new ideas and new ways of solving problems.How does one encourage creative thinking? How does a design team come up with new

ideas? What kind of brainstorming methods can spark more relevant ideas? These are

all questions that creative leaders or teams of varied professionals must address in order

to have a sustainable and competitive advantage in their markets. The key is nding an

effective strategy that allows design teams to explore creative outlets while addressing

their clients problem from a new vantage point. This perspective involves being more

aware of ones surroundings and bringing unrelated elements and objects together to

develop new ideas. Creative individuals play the roles of our innovators, researchers,

educatorsall whom are our problem-solvers. They grapple with thought processes such

as,

Why is X like Y? If X works in a certain way, why

cant Y work in a similar way? Alexander Graham Bell

observed the similarities between the inner workings

of the ear and the ability of a stout piece of membrane

to move steel, and conceived the telephone. Thomas

Edison invented the phonograph, in one day, after

developing an analogy between a toy funnel and the

motions of a paper man and sound vibrations. Moreover,

the way buzzards kept their balance in ight served

as an analogy for the Wright brothers when they were

developing how to maneuver and stabilize an airplane.

(Michalko, 2001)


21/154

xx

Over the past three decades, researchers have developed many creative problem-

solving techniques. In product development theres Nash (1945) and Cooper (1988)

exploring a small selection of idea generation techniques used for new product

development; Clemens and Thornton (1968) describing gap analysis, and Stein (1974)with creative problem solving (Sowrey, 1989).

This thesis provide valuable insights for innovators, researchers, moderators, and

educators who are focused on generating copious ideas and solving problems by shifting

their individual, or teams, paradigm of thinking.

0.3 Format

The proposed methodology is documented as a reective case study with lessons

learned and salient observations for further investigation. The Preface and Background

chapters discuss the premises of this exploration. The Methodology and Results chapters

offer step-by-step descriptions of how this exploration is set up and the resulting

observations and data collection. Finally, wrapping up this discussion are the chapters on

Conclusion and Next Steps. The Conclusion summarizes the observational task analyses

done throughout the case studies, and Next Steps speculate possible discoveries that aid

future investigations on application of this methodology.

Exploring new ways to perceive problems and new attitudes to seek for solutions is

the primary motivation for exploring more ideas. Paul Linus once said, The key to good

ideas is more ideas! On this note, this venture does not stop at exploration, but continued

learning how to shift ones paradigm of thinkingturning every rock unturned for places

where the solution may be in a completely new context that is not typically explored.

So what does this ideation methodology achieve? The results are telling of the

high potential for new discoveries in conducting qualitative research, team building

and training, and generating out-of-box ideas. Results of this exploration contributed


22/154

xxi

insights on how to develop a more enjoyable research and ideation sessions that stimulate

participation and enthusiasm, which will be discussed in Chapter 5: Results.

What does this methodology not achieve? The main limitation to this methodology

is its premature state to conclude any solid evidence of demonstrative results. It does notsolve a specic problem during its trial. Nor does it have a decided result to conclude.

While participants are not required to be in any specic eld, they must however have

prior experience collaborating with fellow participants selected for the session.

More on benets and applications of this methodology are discussed in Chapters 5 and

6.


23/154

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview: Research Scope

Designers do not merely design. They are economists, engineers, inventors,

mechanics, educators, and anthropologists, Bruce Mau emphasized in his 2007 Massive

Change visit to The Ohio State University. Taking a closer look at the interconnectivity

between people in a world brimming of information, a disconnect appears in aggregating

many ideas into workable narratives. This is where designers can play an emerging role

wearing multiple hatsto bridge this gap (De Bono, 1992). Multi-disciplinary design

teams make up a typical strategic team that functions as a think-tank to generate solutions

to real world problems.

This research presents a method that attempts to bridge the vehicles of

communication with not only words, but combining visuals, storytelling, crowd-sourcing

through co-design, and props that generate ideas. The focus of this ideation method is

in exploration. It is not limited to the pre-design phase, but may be applied in the design

process with an object-oriented objective as well. Unique components of this proposed

method lies in the moderating, associative thinking, and storytelling aspects of a given

ideation session. This myriad of techniques aims to bring out the semantic knowledge

within each person in a brainstorming session. Leonardo Di Vinci believed that to gain

knowledge about the form of a problem, you began by learning how to restructure it


24/154


25/154

3

their ideas in a group collage. The collage was presented in two narratives. The rst was

improvised to stretch the imagination, and the second was a logical explanation of the

articles represented in the group collage.

The purpose of this methodology was to explore how seemingly unrelated ideascould came together and possibly generate new and different ideas by when combined

with online collaboration that harnessed subject matter experts, generative tools, free

association, and storytelling. This study aimed to stretch the regular paradigm of design

thinking and targeted an alternative way of problem solving. The underlying approach

of the methodology was to keep stimulating the imagination with scenariosprovided

at rst but created through storytelling laterand kept the ow of ideas unrestricted

in an enjoyable manner. Unrestricted ideas were encouraged throughout the ideation

workshop. One of the groundrules repeated most often for this pre-design idea-generation

methodology was, Theres are no wrong answers.

However, if this methodology was applied to an object-oriented problem, then design

constraints would be inevitable, and wrong answers would be the irrelevant ideas. The

design constraints would serve as the ltration system for the ideas generated. When

applying an object-oriented problem into this methodology, the design team should rst

dene the specic problem statements. Then frame the problem statements as scenarios

that resemble stories (For more details, see Chapter 6.2). Finally, generate ideas using

this methodology during the divergence phase of the Design Process (divergence,

transformation, and convergence).

This methodology was conducted with a focus on the pre-design phase. Therefore

the scenarios were intentionally uid and abstract to allow room for open interpretation.

Participants were encouraged to stretch their imagination to depict their personal

experiences and emotions during the activities. For example, the individual activity asked

participants to describe something that was a no-brainer and pleasurable with no


26/154

4

limitations on their answers. Then the group activity prompted them to nish a sentence

that described the look and feel of an intelligent machine or tool. The suggested

experiential queues were alluded in the request for descriptions of a no-brainer task

and the look of an intelligent machine or tool. The attempted emotional queues weretriggered by asking for descriptions of something pleasurable in the individual activity,

and what the feel of an intelligent machine or tool would be like for the group collage.

The pre-design phase allowed less emphasis on right or wrong answers and more attention

to an experiential and emotional visualizaton.

In the ideal application of this methodology, more time should be rationed for the pre-

design phase and the Design Process should be conducted with a very focused purpose

of generating many different ideas. This methodology consisted of the wiki immersion,

individual activity, eld research simulation or scavenger hunt, group collage, and nally

storytelling. In an ideal scenario, the wiki immersion exercise should be a wiki website

initiated by a company as a brainstorming medium to co-create with online subject

matter experts. The wiki website ought to be very focused and clear in what it should

ask participants to do and how their contribution should be rewarded, with intellectual

property forfeited, if selected for further idea-generation processes. Once relevant online

subject matter experts had their window of time to contribute ideas, the design team

should also have an opportunity to integrate their ideas into the wiki website as well. Then

selected ideas from both the online subject matter experts and the design team should be

listed on the wiki website. That should conclude the online collaboration. (More details on

this process, see Chapter 6.4 Continued Investigation.) From this ltered list of ideas,

the design team should select two ideas as the prompt for the individual activity within the

design team. The eld research simulation, or scavenger hunt, was intentially focused on

connecting images and words symbolically with objects. It should follow the individual

activity. The ideal situation should also suggest that the group collage and improvised


27/154

5

storytelling should be the time to not only integrate concepts, but help conjure new or

other unexpected ideas to be documented concurrently or recorded on video for later

analysis.

It is important to note that regardless of how familiar or unfamiliar the design teamswould be to participatory approaches, this methodology provides the room for all design

teams to discover different and possibly novel ways to use otherwise mundane objects.


28/154

6

CHAPTER 2

BACKGROUND

2.1 Introduction: Inspirations

Genius is often marked by the ability to imagine comparisons and similarities and

even similar differences between parallel facts and events in different elds or other

worlds. (Michalko, 2001) Novel thinking and creativity need a shift of paradigm from

the mainstream thought in order to occur. Thinking what no one else is thinking is one

of the key exercises Michael Michalko suggests in Cracking Creativity . (Michalko, 2001)

His strategy of looking in other worlds inspired the free association activities presented

in this study.

Variations of the immersion activity, generative tools, and storytelling approaches

were rst introduced by Dr. Elizabeth B.-N. Sanders graduate seminar class at The

Ohio State University. Concepts from that course were adapted to this methodology

by applying different orientations for the immersion activity, generative tools, and

storytelling. The motivation for exploring innovative ways to generate ideas is not a new

one. However, this methodology explores an atypical combination and timing for its

activities that suggest high potential for generating a high volume of ideas. The synthesis

of this rapid-activity approach was adopted from informal interviews with executives

and designers from Nike, Yahoo!, local design rms, and design research companies. The

interviewees shared personal practices that promoted innovation through focused fun.


29/154

7

Most importantly, they expressed how much they valued their liberty to explore. There

is a growing recognition that fostering a culture of innovation is critical to success, as

important as mapping out competitive strategies or maintaining good margins. (Kelley,

2005) Today, companies are valued less for their current offerings than for their abilityto change and adapt and dream up something new. Whether you sell consumer electronics

or nancial services, the frequency with which you must innovate and replenish your

offerings is rapidly increasing. (Kelley, 2005) In a recent Boston Consulting Group

survey covering nearly fty countries and all sorts of businesses reported that nine out

of ten senior executives believe generating growth through innovation is essential for

success in their industry. (Kelley, 2005)

The creative brillance of an inspired person is only the beginning of the innovation

challenge. (Govindarajan & Trimble, 2005) Innovation also needs to be active in a

companys business model and culture as well. This methodology does not suggest to

generate ideas limited to products or services, but the execution of these ideas may also

be the topic for ideation as well. Its not the idea that counts; it is what you do with it.

(Govindarajan & Trimble, 2005) What to do with these ideas need to be well planned and

executed.

The advantage of this methodology is its exibility in brainstorming any type of

problem. If the problem can be framed in a scenario, it can be the focused theme for

discussion. Not only can this study be used to explore idea generation, as its original

intention, but it may also help develop strategies for business plans, organization

recongurations, and management dilemmas. Paint it into a scenario and it will t into

this methodology. In contrast to a typical hour-long meeting may seem like eternity, this

approach to brainstorming was unanimously enjoyable for the ve separate groups of

participating design teams. In this context, a design team refers to a group of individuals

gathered together to brainstorm solutions to a problem. Often times they are also


30/154

8

responsible for executing these plans. Just having an idea is not enough. Having many

ideas is the key. These ideas are not limited to what the solution to a problem looks like,

but also address how to deligate the tasks, who the constituents will be, and how the

project should pan out. Having strong ideas for innovation also require strong ideas for execution to see them through.

The power of this methodology lies in its components that have been proven for

creative-thinking rigor. More emphasis is put on Edward De Bonos lateral thinking

methods; (De Bono, 1992) Michael Michalkos international think-tank concepts;

Elizabeth B.-N. Sanders participatory research methods that explore the emotional

vocabulary of participants; Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams long-running

collaborations and programs studying how the Web (sometimes called Web 2.0) changes

the corporation and how companies build relationships, market, and compete; (Tapscott &

Williams, 2006) and Anthony W. Ulwicks outcome-driven programs that structurize the

unpredictability of innovation. (Ulwick, 2005)

Although this exploration shows great potential to generate out-of-the-box ideas,

it does not aim to yield specic ideas in the time frame of a single brainstorming

meeting. This study serves as an alternative system open for further exploration and

experimentation. The case studies conducted here are not necessarily repeatable in

exactitude. However, the concept and structure are duplicatable. Because the participants

impact the dynamics of qualitative research, the reproducibility of this study is heavily

dependent on the comfort levels of participants. (To explore applications of all or part of

this ideation methodology, see Chapter 6 Next Steps.)

2.2 Market Research: Competitive brainstorming approaches

A prosperous company strives to rene their ideation technique towards innovation.

Because innovation is the lifeblood of all organizations...There is no longer any serious


31/154

9

debate about the primacy of innovation to the health and future strength of a corporation.

Even the staid British publicataion The Economist recently claimed, Innovation is

now recognized as the single most important ingredient in any modern economy. And

what The Economist said about nations is equally true about organizations...while we atIDEO used to spend the majority of our time in the world of product-based innovation,

we have more recently come around to seeing innovation as a tool for transforming the

entire culture of organizations...They need innovation at every point of the compass, in

all aspects of the business and among every team member. Building an environment fully

engaged in positive change, and a culture rich in creativity and renewal, means creating

a company with 360 degrees of innovation. And companies that want to succeed at

innovation will need new insights. New viewpoints. (Kelley, 2005)

Generating new viewpoints is a practice in idea-generation, or more commonly

known as brainstorming. In the past, when companies refer to brainstorming they

meant a few selected individuals meeting around a table to talking about ideas without

anything more than a notepad and pen to take notes. The term was rst coined by

Alex Osborn in 1938 and popularized by his book, Applied Imagination, published in

1958. (Holt, 1996) More recently, design companies such as IDEO have revolutionized

brainstorming to focus more on the dynamics of a group and an open environment for

creative thinking. (Kelley, 2001)

Common traditional brainstorming practices include total quality ow charts; mess

maps; mindscapes; concept maps; and mind maps. A brainstorming session, according

to Osborns technique, comprises statement of the problem, idea generation, selection

of the best idea, critical examination and enrichment of the idea, and presentation of

the result to those concerned. The best results of the idea generation step are usually

obtained by a heterogeneous group of four to seven persons. (Holt, 1996) However, a

known drawback to this method is that it is prone to incompetent leaders, dominating


32/154

10

individuals, passive individuals, inability to cooperate, fear of being foolish, and

disturbing interruptions, that are not prevented by the method itself.

Another creative thinking approach is brainwriting. Originally developed by Bernd

Rohrbach in the 1960s as Method 635, this strategy focuses on writing three ideas ona piece of paper in ve minutes, which is then circulated to other participants to do the

same. (Holt, 1996) A modication to this is circulating the ideas through internal email

allowing any duration of time to write the three ideas down, which may take hours to days

on end. By the early 1970s, researchers from Battelle Institute in Frankfurt developed

a more exible variation called brainwriting pool. (Holt, 1996) Ideas are written on

separate sheets of paper and placed in the center of a table. Each participant adds to this

pool. When an idea is triggered by another persons paper from the pool, the sheets are

exchanged. (Holt, 1996) These two brainwriting techniques have been proven to give

good results. (Holt, 1996) One will expect a multidisciplinary group to consist of both left

and right brainers, but after credibility and expertise is established between the members

of the group, the take-away from an ideation session is whether or not it was enjoyable

and stimulating. Not until 1984 did a more sophisticated method using computer-aided

brainstorming (CAB) for stimulating and structuring ideas arise with Seth Hollanders

master thesis at Dartmouth College, NH on Computer-assisted creativity and the

policy process. (Holt 1996) Since then a number of computer-assisted creativity (CAC)

software products, such as Electronic Brainstorming by University of Arizona, Operation

Brainstorm lead by Robert L.A. Trot with a global think-tank with Asia, Europe, and

US, and a software called Fluvius, developed by Horst Geschka, for the generation and

evaluation of ideas, have been developed. (Holt 1996) A prevailing advantage of CAC

software is its proven value in the whole problem solving process stimulating creative

thinking, evaluation, structuring, and presenting results. (Holt 1996) Many studies have

also compared using verbal brainstorming to groups using an electronic technique based


33/154

11

upon individual poolwriting, but very few studies have investigated groups using other

electronic meeting techniques. (Aiken, 2007)

More inventive brainstorming today includes crowdsourcing, or out-sourcing to the

masses through the Internet, and using social networking web sites through the WorldWide Web to disseminate calls for entries. Moreover, companies have begun to invite

user input through design competitions; new product launch blogs; internal company

wikis; Second Life virtual meetings using avatars; GUNGEN creative collaboration used

in Japan (Shigenobu, 2007), and the KJ brainstorming method popularized also by Japan

(Kunifuji, 2007). All these techniques acknowledge their consumers role of becoming

prosumers. Prosumers are well-informed consumers who proactively choose what they

want or need instead of what is advertised to them. (Tapscott & Williams, 2006)

Numerous studies have also proven that new electronic meeting techniques can

improve productivity. (Aiken, 2007) One particular study done by Milam Aiken, Hugh

Sloan, Joseph Paolillo (University of Mississippi), and Luvai Motiwalla (University of

Hartford), compared two electronic meeting techniques and found that users preferred

electronic gallery writing over individual pool writing because of the formers ability to

show all the groups comments at the same time. (Aiken, 2007)

In this research, brainstorming takes a dramatic turn from talking heads to combine

several different creative thinking strategies using the existing wiki communities

on the Internet followed by internal individual and group activities. The result is a

new methodology derived from design research practices that will be referred to as

collaborative ideation. Collaborative ideation is a group of individuals putting their

heads together to generate ideas by bouncing them off one another. In group ideation,

businesses typically begin by pinpointing their audience and the area of research

associated with their target user group.


34/154

12

2.3 Idea-generation: Innovate even with no money

Idea-generation is often used interchangeably with ideation, which means coming

up with ideas. Researchers have studied the effectiveness of individual and group idea-

generation, and found that group work does not necessarily produce more ideas.The task of idea generation in brainstorming groups

has been extensively studied through controlled

experiments (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987) and simulation

studies (Nijstad & Stroebe, 2006). In the study of group

brainstorming for idea generation, empirical work

has repeatedly revealed evidence of process losses,

in which a group with idea sharing may not always

perform better than a collection of noninteracting

individuals whose contributions are simply pooled

afterwards (i.e., nominal groups), both in terms

of the quantity and quality of unique ideas (Hill,

1982; Diehl & Stroebe). (Wang & Ros, 2007)

However, further cognitive studies on computer-simulated memory models do suggest

that group idea generation has the potential to generate more creative ideas than

individuals alone. (Brown & Paulus, 2002) The exchange of ideas between more than one

individual causes the stimulation that aids in creative idea generation. (Brown & Paulus,

2002)

One Research and Development (R&D) team funded by the European Space Agency

(ESA) was assigned to develop a terahertz imager. Before getting approved for the

funding, they needed a persuasive strategy to nd the right people for the job. (Clery,

2002) Lead by Peter de Maagt, they agreed to use a forced, intense teamworkthe mini

Manhattan Project approachmade up of a mixed R&D team of eleven researchersthat


35/154

13

won the go-ahead for their chip-sized terahertz imager proposal. (Clery, 2002) But they

are zealous converts to the agencys novel multidisciplinary approach. If you want to

nd something innovative thats the best way, says Luisa Deias, an electronic engineer

from Italy and the teams sole female member. This isnt work, adds British materialsscientist James ONeill. Were just having fun. (Clery, 2002)

2.4 Co-creation: Applied in the pre-design phase

Companies beginning to embark in co-creative programs involving users in their

design processes are nding more success rates in providing products and services

more catered to their target audience. (Customer-Made, 2006) However, users are still

only accessed in a homogenous manner. (Hippell, 2005) Ideas are still restricted by

the parameters of the type of product and service to create and not allowed to be freely

expored across different platforms to co-create with the public.

2.5 Social-networking and crowdsourcing

This new collaborative ideation method begins with early immersion within

communities of users that have specic knowledge and experience with their subject

matter known as subject matter experts. Luckily with access to the Internet, people

around the world are bridged by a relatively inexpensive way to communicate and access

data. A new, emerging community for information sharing between stakeholders and

subject matter experts has surfaced in the form of wikis online. (Tapscott & Williams,

2006) Wikis are made and used for people to share knowledge in a collaborative engine

adding new information by editing content directly on the web.

The Web is becoming a place for the collaborative construction of information on an

incredible scale, and the wiki is at the center of this transformation. Almost anyone you

meet has heard of Wikipedia, and people are increasingly seeing how the wiki combines


36/154

14

simplicity and power in a radically different paradigm shifting way. In fact, I might

venture to say that the wiki is the most signicant development on the Internet since the

web browser. Where the web browser enabled people to access online information in a

radically different and better way that sparked widespread growth of the Internet, the wikienables people to directly and easily edit information in a way that encourages increasing

participation and exponentially faster growth of online information. (Mader, 2008)

People who dedicate their time in these online communities either want to expand

their knowledge or nd people who share the same fascination and insights as they do,

which their daily dialogue does not provide. (Ellsworth, 2006) Design teams do not

currently practice collaborative ideation integrating these user-inputs from wikis during

the pre-design phase. By using wikis to gather ideas from users, design teams may be able

to generate more user-centered designs earlier during their collaborative ideation sessions.

2.6 Free association: Using semantic knowledge

In normal thinking there needs to be a reason for saying something before it is said.

Otherwise the result is nonsense, Edward De Bono explains, With provocation, there

may not be a reason for saying something until after it is said. (De Bono, 2008) This

methodology focuses on creating a provocation with the wiki immersion and individual

activity, which then supplies the words and images used as a stimulus for further

associations and ideas used in the collage. Inspired by Edward De Bonos Random Word

exercises, this methodology uses the patterning system De Bono developed that is best

described in his anecdote:

Imagine you live in a smallish town. Whenever you

leave home, you always take the main street to get to

your destination. One day, on the outskirts of the town,

your car breaks down or you have an accident. For some


37/154

15

reason you have to walk home. You ask around for

directions. You nd yourself arriving home by a street

you would never have taken on leaving home.

If you start from the periphery, you can open up pathsyou would never open up from the center. The Random

Word drops you at the periphery. As you think your way

back to the focus, you open up new ideas. (De Bono,

2008)

In using this patterning system process, one logically uses the Random Word for

stimulation, which is in this case the words or images derived from the individual activity

describing something that is a no-brainer and enjoyable. These themes become

the main frame of reference for the new ideas stimulated. However, to use this method

properly, You should not just look for some sort of connection between the Random

Word and the focus. this does not have any stimulating effect at all. The task is not to

connect the two, but to use the Random Word for stimulation. (De Bono, 2008) For

instance, the word that came to mind for a no-brainer task for participant 4 in WS 1 was

shoe-laces. To use this method properly, the letters in the word shoe-laces should not

be rearranged or used as an acronym. Simply take the word as it is. Nor should you use

the word in a series of steps to arrive at a new word, for example: Ship suggests sea; sea

suggests navigation; navigation suggests starsso lets use the word stars. (De Bono,

2008) It is best to use the word shoe-laces as a concept or a value rather than simple

associations. (De Bono, 2008) Another point to consider is to look out for possibilities,

values, and new directions. Once a possibility has emerged, pursue that possibility.

(De Bono, 2008) Lastly, it is best to stick to the word selected as a group whether it

initially has any connection to the focus or not. In this study, the focus for the collage was

an intelligent machine or tool will look and feel like this. This patterning system is a


38/154

16

lateral thinking method used alone in a group of workshops that has generated 21,000

ideas in an afternoon for a steel company. (De Bono, 2008)

De Bonos patterning system process proves effective as both an individual and

group brainstorming tool, but generating ideas in a group is superior to individual brainstorming. Although sufcient literature supports individual over group

brainstorming, cognitive researchers have found that group brainstorming is more

effective in generating creative ideas. (Brown, 2002) In this methodology, the main

focus is generating ideas. Therefore, for this exploration De Bonos lateral thinking

technique is credibly effective. Other technologies have found, Computer simulations

of an associative memory model of idea generation in groups suggest that groups have

the potential to generate ideas that individuals brainstorming alone are less likely to

generate. Exchanging ideas by means of writing or computers, alternating from solitary

to group brainstorming, and using heterogeneous groups appear to be useful approaches

for enhancing group brainstorming. (Brown, 2002) This methodology also explores

exchanging ideas via writing or computers through the wiki immersion, and alternating

from individual to group idea generation with the individual activity and group collage;

however does not include explorations in heterogeneous groups to enhance group

brainstorming.

2.7 Field research simulation: Scavenger hunt

Field Research is a general term that can be used to describe many different kinds

of research activity that serves to bring the designer (or design team members) into direct

contact with the customer. (Arnold, 2005) Often times conducting eld research reduces

the risks of failure and increases the rate of success toward developing a new product, or

justify the millions of dollars used to proceed with its development (Arnold, 2005). Field

research is one method to capture data on the voice of the customer, as do ethnography,


39/154

17

anthropological research, contextual inquiries, customer interviews, focus groups, and

company visits. (Ulwick, 2005) Identifying three distinct types of jobs that a target

audience performs will help design teams successfully acquire the correct type of data

during their eld research data collection to optimize the effectiveness of their product or service.

They must know which jobs their customers are trying

to get done; the outcomes customers are trying to

achieve; and the constraints that may prevent customers

from adopting or using a new product or service.

These three data sources represent the primary means

by which companies can create new and signicant

customer value: by helping customers perform ancillary

jobs, new jobs, or more jobs; by improving customers

chances of getting a specic job done to satisfaction;

and by removing obstacles that prevent customers from

doing a job at all. (Ulwick, 2005)

In the case of this methodology, eld research is a conceptual simulation in the form

of a scavenger hunt. The participant is the customer. The eld research simulation

is also referred to here as the scavenger hunt for its resemblance to the game. In a

scavenger hunt, a list of items are given to each individual or group to disperse and nd

within a limited time frame. The rst to return with all the items found usually wins

the game. The scavenger hunt is analgous to collecting data in eld research. However,

some companies who do not know how to produce actionable eld research outcomes

in a cost-effective way may be more overwhelmed and frustrated paying for the cost

of research. (Arnold, 2005) As eld research has been used for many years, its benets

include greater empathy from the designers perspective, increased creativity, and


40/154

18

increased success in the market place. (Arnold, 2005)

2.8 Storytelling

Although most storytelling approaches are documented in education, moreinvestigation in industry practices reveal that its a common technique used to connect

experiences and imagination in problem solving. Story-telling combines semantic

knowledge and episodic knowledge by explicit problem solving strategies. (Klamma,

Spaniol, & Renzel, 2006) The Journal of Universal Knowledge Management documents

how marketers are taking advantage of computer software to share non-linear stories that

discuss entrepreneurial collaboration and consumption using sophisticated multimedia

host engines. (Klamma, Spaniol, & Renzel, 2006)

Stories are created from imagination, personal experiences, and an intertwining of

words. Vocabulary building, improved listening skills, community building, development

of syntactic complexity, and improved sequencing abilities are all advantages of

storytelling (Blake and Bartel 1999; Groce 2004; Hilder 2005; Koenig and Zorn 2002;

Myers 2001). (Harris, 2007) When people share their narratives, they feel a sense of

validation and discover how to connect content material with personal knowledge. Active

listeners benet from storytelling, too, because stories require listeners to suspend their

disbelief. (Ohler 2006) Listening is as much an art as telling. Listeners listen to connect

and see their own reection in the story. Susan Butterworth and Ana Maria LoCicero

(2001) suggest asking listeners to make comments on the story to encourage ideas, reect

thinking, and enhance meaning and importance of the story. (Harris, 2007) By using

these concepts, this methodology uses storytelling to consolidate and make sense of all

the qualitative information gathered in the group activity.


41/154

19

2.9 Generative tools research: Inspirations for materials

Recent directions in design require designers to become more and more aware

of the users experience, emotion, the situation of product use, and social and cultural

inuences. (Sanders, 2003) The pioneered techniques in generative tools at a localdesign research rm in Columbus, OH gave respondents toolkits to make their own

designerly tools to describe future experiences in living. (Sanders, 2003) From these

established participatory research tools, this research attempts to combine the abstractions

of the toolkit concept with a few additional objects that activate the olfactory senses,

such as spices and sh feed. The inspiration for adding scents into the toolkit is from

the International Flavors and Fragrances (IFF) emotional prole of the fragrances. IFF

developed a proprietary, global database that identies the emotional responses people

have to almost 5,000 scent ingredients and fragrances. This rich palette of sensory

associations and emotions can be drawn upon to inspire designers and consumer. (Gob,

2007)

2.10 Application to the design process: Intended case and conditions

The main focus of this methodology is on ideation. The initial immersion activity

focuses on familiarizing design teams with subject matter experts through wiki

communities. An ideal wiki experience is typically gradual and ongoing, however

recruiting online subject matter experts to generate ideas to cocreate with design teams

is best limited to a very specic window of time for participation. The individual activity

portion of this methodology stresses the design teams emotional and experiential

perspective on ease of use and doing something enjoyable. The free association is the

technique used in the individual activity. It attempts to uncover the latent wants and needs

of experiences that combine attributes of ease of use and doing something enjoyable

together in one frame of reference. The eld research simulation is designed to introduce


42/154

20

the concept of making metaphoric connections between words and objects. That is a

strong form of visualization helpful in externalizing ideas. Finally, the group activity and

storytelling round out the methodology with brainstorming and stretching the imagination

to make new associations with the objects in a collage. The overarching purpose of thismethodology in the pre-design phase is to provide an alternative form of a cognitive

retreat that is both affordable and effective to stir the creative juices.

2.11 Operational denitions

Operational denitions qualify the terms used throughout this discussion.

Collaboration

The process or act of working with individuals to produce an outcome, product, or

service. Collaboration occurs in the context of completing a particular task. (Brown, et al.,

2007)

Free Association

A technique in psychology derived by Sigmund Freud. It describes the concept of relating

the rst thing that comes to mind with another unrelated thing. (Nelson, McEvoy, &

Dennis, 2000)

Ideation

The activity of generating ideas. This term is often used by industrial designers to describe

equivalent activities such as brainstorming and free thinking.

Subject matter expert (SME)

A person with a specic set of knowledge related to a project or discipline. (Brown, et al.,


43/154

21

2007)

Co-creation

A very broad term referring to any act of collective creativity, i.e., creativity that isshared by two or more people. Applications range from the physical to the metaphysical

and from the material to the spiritual, as can be seen by the output of search engines.

(Sanders & Stappers, 2008)

Co-design

Collective creativity applied across the whole span of a design process as a specic

instance of co-creation. Co-design refers, for some people, to the collective creativity of

collaborating designers. In a broader sense, co-design referred here is the creativity of

designers and people not trained in design working together in the design development

process. (Sanders & Stappers, 2008)

Wiki

A collaboratively authored knowledge resource that is accessed and edited from a web

browser using wiki software, often referred to as a collaboratively authored website.

(Klobas, 2006)

Crowd-sourcing

Crowdsourcing is when people gather via the Internet to create something and share in

the prot, often without ever meeting each other in person. (Cambrian House, 2008)

Associative thinking

The ability to classify or draw relationships between contingent objects or external


44/154

22

signals (cues) to one another. (Shanks, 1995)

Groupthink

The tendency of people who interact with each other frequently or who work closely witheach other to begin thinking alike rather than nding innovative solutions to problems.

(Brown, et al., 2007)

Company culture

A companys shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices. (Merriam-Webster)

Interaction

A reciprocated reaction between two or more human beings, or to a lesser degree,

between a human and an articial entity capable of responding in some mannersuch as a

computer or system. (Saffer, 2007)

Storytelling

The allegorical connection between objects in proximity to one another in an

improvisational and imaginative manner.

Semantic knowledge

Long established knowledge about objects, facts, and word meanings. (Squire, 2004)

MadLibbing

Used as a verb to describe the act of creating an allegory by substituting words or images

found on a collage as the basis for the Storytellers content. Mad Libs were books

invented in the 1950s by Leonard Stern and Roger Price, who published the rst editions


45/154

23

themselves. The words mad libs is a play on the word ad lib, from the Latin ad

libitum meaning as you wish. (FreeDictionary.com) Originally, it is a word game

where one player prompts another for a list of words to substitute for blanks in a short

story; these word substitutions results in a story that is then read aloud.

Moderator

Or Facilitator. A person who keeps meetings and discussions on task, and who guides the

discussions to elicit relevant information. (Brown, et al., 2007)


46/154

24

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction: Process

This methodology is conducted in the form of a workshop and divided into six parts as

seen in Figure 2. It begins with an immersion phase where online subject matter experts

from wiki communities interact with the design team (Figure 3). This is followed by the

one-hour, four-part workshop. Part one is the group discussions on wikis; part two is the

individual activity; part three is the eld research simulation; and part four is the group

activity and storytelling. Parts two and four utilize generative tools to aid individual

and group expression. In part three, participants are asked to leave the room to nd an

object to represent what they wrote down in their second description paper elaborating

on the idea of something enjoyable. This is in the form of a scavenger hunt, which

briey simulates eld research. Part four challenges the imaginations of the participants.

Combining descriptions from the wiki discussion and individual activity, part four asks

the design team to work as a group to use associative cues to string otherwise unrelated

things together on a large piece of paper for storytelling.

Professional design teams will be compared to each other in how they generated ideas

worked together as a team using the generative tools provided. The design team members

will all follow the same instructions and guided questions on how to access and interact

with three existing wiki communities. Then using the dialogues they have gathered from


47/154

25

Figure 3: Workshop process: Wiki immersion

Figure 2: Workshop process


48/154

26

these communities, the participants will formulate visualizations of how the people in

these communities describe their everyday progress, dilemmas, and resolutions regarding

their subject matter. These visualizations will be shared when the participants come

together in the workshop.

The design team will then take the wiki commentaries and create a list of descriptive

words that begin to categorize the comments, and note immediate questions that come to

mind based on their initial reactions after reading each of them. These descriptive words

will be used later, in the group activity, as added content under their new context. (Figure

4)

Approximately twenty seconds is allowed between each prompt of the individual

activity. Participants are asked to quickly move through the rst two descriptions by

writing down the rst thing that comes to mind when prompted by the moderator.

Participants are given blank pieces of paper to do this kind of immediate, free associationexercise. (Figure 5)

The free associations exercise from the individual activity is then represented as

symbolic objects in the eld research simulation, or scavenger hunt. The participants

Figure 4: Workshop process: Wiki Discussion


49/154

27

begin by leaving the room to scavenge for objects that represents what they described as

enjoyable or pleasurable in their description two. (Figure 6)

For the group activity, the participants work together as one large group to nish the

sentence, My machine or tool will look and feel like this To represent their concept,

the group is asked to construct a collage with the generative tools and anything in the

room that strikes their imagination. In the middle of this group effort, the moderator asks

Figure 6: Field research simulation

Figure 5: Workshop process: Individual Activity


50/154

28

the group to include the wiki comments into their collage. Then they are asked to add to

any of the descriptions from their individual activity that may be relevant to their collage.

(Figure 7) When some progress has been made on the collage, the group is asked to select

two storytellers to represent them; one person will tell an allegory using the items used in

the collage, and the other will explain the rationale behind the materials selected and how

they completed the original sentence, My machine or tool will look and feel like this

All the workshops used video and audio documentation. The moderator kept

observational notes after the sessions. Post-questionnaires that were distributed at the end

of each workshop were also collected.

The video and audio data were transcribed and further analyzed by the moderator.

Observational notes were analyzed in order to evaluate participants behaviors and usage

of materials across the ve workshops. Analysis of post-questionnaire feedback was used

to make incremental changes for each successive workshop. (Figure 8)

Figure 7: Workshop process: Group activity


51/154

29

3.2 Timeline of workshop events

The workshop was estimated to take sixty minutes. The earliest version of the

workshop timeline began with the immersion activity recap for the rst ten minutes.

Then the individual activity and eld research simulation took the next fteen minutes

followed by the storytelling for another ten minutes. Finally, ten more minutes was

allotted for group discussion, which leaves the last twelve to fteen minutes for lling out

the post-questionnaires (Figure 9).

56.5

3.0 7.0 7.0 27.5 12.0

wiki immersion activity

wiki discussion

time in minutes

scavenger huntindividual activity group activity

questionnaire

Figure 9: Intended timeline

Figure 8: Workshop process: Questionnaire


52/154

30

3.3 Workshop approach: Modifying based on precedence

Each successive workshop followed an experiential-feedback strategy that built on top

of modications determined by the moderators experience from the previous workshop.

3.4 User denition

The target user for the purpose of this research was the above average Internet

usersomeone familiar with the Internet (or World Wide Web), who actively uses some

form of social networking web site or software such as Facebook, MySpace, Skype,

wikis, or instant messaging. This user was also required to be familiar with working

in a design team atmosphere or arrangement where varied individuals come together

to discuss project strategies and ideas for new client projects that involve producing a

product, service, or brand to meet user wants and needs. In terms of demographics, the

participants are adults, 18 years or older, male or female, working in the local area of

Columbus, OH, and having worked together at one point of time before meeting for the

research workshop. Cultural, social, and economic backgrounds were not considered for

this research.

3.5 Recruitment sampling: Criteria and script

Recruitment sampling was based on rst come, rst served availability within a

company having an active in-house (or internal) design team. Potential companies

were then selected based on willingness to participate, the varied focuses of their work

compared to previously selected groups, and familiarity with design team brainstorming

sessions. Potential subjects were screened with a recruitment script based on the above

criteria (i.e., user denition) and selected companies were chosen based on the above

criteria (Figure 10).


53/154

31

Figure 10: Recruitment Script


54/154

32

3.6 Finding contact persons: Who they were

Contact persons were obtained through the professional network of the Design

Department of The Ohio State University and alumni. Once a connection was made, the

contac

Date post:	09-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	kirsten-woodhams-thomson
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Idea Generation Exploring a CoCreation Methodology Using Online Subject Matter Ex[Erts

Documents