Refined metric for a-posteriori novelty assessments

References

• Atilola, O., M. Tomko, and J. S. Linsey. 2016. “The Effects of Representation on Idea Generation and Design Fixation: A Study Comparing Sketches and Function Trees.” Design Studies 42: 110–136. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2015.10.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berthelsdorf, F. A., R. M. Arlitt, J. L. Armstrong, A. M. Wilson, and R. B. Stone. 2016. “Creative Personalities: How Personality Influences Creativity of Concept Ideation Methods.” The Fourth International Conference on Design Creativity (4th ICDC) (pp. 1–8).
   Google Scholar
• Boden, M. A. 2004. The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanism. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203508527
   Google Scholar
• Boden, M. A. 2009. “Computer Models of Creativity.” AI Magazine 30 (3): 23–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, D. C. 2014. “Problems with the Calculation of Novelty Metrics.” Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Design Computing and Cognition. http://web.cs.wpi.edu/~dcb/Papers/DCC14/DCC14-Brown-Novelty-workshop.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Choo, P. K., Z. N. Lou, B. Koo, B. A. Camburn, F. Grey, and K. L. Wood. 2014. “Ideation Methods: A First Study on Measured Outcomes with Personality Type.” Proceedings of the ASME 2014 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference IDETC/CIE 2014 August 17–20, 2014, Buffalo, New York, USA (pp. 1–12). doi: https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2014-34954
   Google Scholar
• Dorst, K., and P. E. Vermaas. 2005. “John Gero’s Function-Behaviour-Structure Model of Designing: A Critical Analysis.” Research in Engineering Design 16 (1–2): 17–26. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-005-0058-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eckert, C. 2013. “That Which is not Form: The Practical Challenges in Using Functional Concepts in Design.” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 27 (03): 217–231. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S089006041300022X
   Google Scholar
• Eckert, C., A. Ruckpaul, T. Alink, and A. Albers. 2012. “Variations in Functional Decomposition for an Existing Product: Experimental Results.” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 26 (02): 107–128. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060412000029
   Google Scholar
• Fiorineschi, L. 2018. “Abstraction Framework to Support Students in Learning Creative Conceptual Design.” Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology 16 (4): 616–636. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-02-2018-0017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiorineschi, L., F. S. Frillici, and F. Rotini. 2018. “Issues Related to Missing Attributes in A-Posteriori Novelty Assessments.” International Design Conference - Design 2018 (pp. 1067–1078), Dubrovnik – Croatia.
   Google Scholar
• Fiorineschi, L., F. S. Frillici, and F. Rotini. 2020a. “Impact of Missing Attributes on the Novelty Metric of Shah et al.” Research in Engineering Design 31 (April 2020): 221–234. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-020-00332-x
   Google Scholar
• Fiorineschi, L., F. S. Frillici, and F. Rotini. 2020b. “Subjectivity of Novelty Metrics Based on Idea Decomposition.” International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation 8 (223–239): 1–17. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2020.1811775
   Google Scholar
• Gero, J. S., R. Yu, and J. Wells. 2019. “The Effect of Design Education on Creative Design Cognition of High School Students.” International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation 7 (4): 196–212. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2019.1628664
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hay, L., A. H. B. Duffy, M. Grealy, M. Tahsiri, C. McTeague, and T. Vuletic. 2020. “A Novel Systematic Approach for Analysing Exploratory Design Ideation.” Journal of Engineering Design 31 (3): 127–149. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2019.1662381
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hocevar, D. 1979. “A Comparison of Statistical Infrequency and Subjective Judgment as Criteria in the Measurement of Originality.” Journal of Personality Assessment 43 (3): 297–299. doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4303_13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hwang, D., and W. Park. 2018. “Design Heuristics set for X: A Design aid for Assistive Product Concept Generation.” Design Studies 58: 89–126. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.04.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jagtap, S. 2019. “Design Creativity: Refined Method for Novelty Assessment.” International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation 7 (1–2): 99–115. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2018.1463176
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jansson, D. G., and S. M. Smith. 1991. “Design Fixation.” Design Studies 12 (1): 3–11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(91)90003-F
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, T. A., B. W. Caldwell, A. Cheeley, and M. G. Green. 2016. “Comparison and Extension of Novelty Metrics for Problem-Solving Tasks.” Proceedings of the ASME 2016 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference IDETC/CIE 2016, Charlotte, NC. doi:https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2016-60319
   Google Scholar
• Kershaw, T. C., S. Bhowmick, C. C. Seepersad, and K. Hölttä-Otto. 2019. “A Decision Tree Based Methodology for Evaluating Creativity in Engineering Design.” Frontiers in Psychology 10 (JAN): 1–19. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00032
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Komoto, H., and T. Tomiyama. 2011. A Theory of Decomposition in Systems. In ICED 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Kurtoglu, T., M. I. Campbell, and J. S. Linsey. 2009. “An Experimental Study on the Effects of a Computational Design Tool on Concept Generation.” Design Studies 30 (6): 676–703. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2009.06.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linsey, J. S., E. F. Clauss, T. Kurtoglu, J. T. Murphy, K. L. Wood, and A. B. Markman. 2011. “An Experimental Study of Group Idea Generation Techniques: Understanding the Roles of Idea Representation and Viewing Methods.” Journal of Mechanical Design 133 (3): 1–15. doi: https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4003498
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopez-Mesa, B., and R. Vidal. 2006. “Novelty Metrics in Engineering Design Experiments.” 9th International Design Conference, DESIGN 2006 (pp. 557–564), Dubrovnik, Croatia.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, B. A., J. O. Wilson, D. Rosen, and J. Yen. 2009. “Refined Metrics for Measuring Ideation Effectiveness.” Design Studies 30 (6): 737–743. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2009.07.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oman, S. K., I. Y. Tumer, K. Wood, and C. Seepersad. 2013. “A Comparison of Creativity and Innovation Metrics and Sample Validation Through in-Class Design Projects.” Research in Engineering Design 24 (1): 65–92. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-012-0138-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pahl, G., W. Beitz, J. Feldhusen, and K. H. Grote. 2007. Engineering Design. 3rd ed. London: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Peeters, J., P. A. Verhaegen, D. Vandevenne, and J. R. Duflou. 2010. “Refined Metrics for Measuring Novelty in Ideation.” Proceedings of IDMME – Virtual Concept 2010 (pp. 1–4), Bordeaux, France.
   Google Scholar
• Ross, S. M. 2009. Probability and Statistics for Engineers and Scientists. 4th ed. Boston: Elsevier Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sarkar, P., and A. Chakrabarti. 2011. “Assessing Design Creativity.” Design Studies 32 (4): 348–383. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.01.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah, J. J., N. Vargas-Hernandez, and S. M. Smith. 2003. “Metrics for Measuring Ideation Effectiveness.” Design Studies 24 (2): 111–134. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(02)00034-0
   Google Scholar
• Sluis-Thiescheffer, W., T. Bekker, B. Eggen, A. Vermeeren, and H. De Ridder. 2016. “Measuring and Comparing Novelty for Design Solutions Generated by Young Children Through Different Design Methods.” Design Studies 43 (March): 48–73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.01.001
   Google Scholar
• Srinivasan, V., and A. Chakrabarti. 2009. “SAPPHIRE – An Approach to Analysis and Synthesis.” International Conference on Engineering Design – ICED’09 (pp. 417–428), Stanford, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Srivathsavai, R., N. Genco, K. Hölttä-otto, and C. C. Seepersad. 2010. “Study of Existing Metrics Used in Measurement if Ideation Effectiveness.” Proceedings of the ASME 2010 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference IDETC/CIE 2010, Montreal, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Starkey, E., C. A. Toh, and S. R. Miller. 2016. “Abandoning Creativity: The Evolution of Creative Ideas in Engineering Design Course Projects.” Design Studies 47: 47–72. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.08.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toh, C. A., and S. R. Miller. 2015. “How Engineering Teams Select Design Concepts: A View Through the Lens of Creativity.” Design Studies 38: 111–138. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2015.03.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toh, C., and S. R. Miller. 2019. “Does the Preferences for Creativity Scale Predict Engineering Students’ Ability to Generate and Select Creative Design Alternatives?” Journal of Mechanical Design, Transactions of the ASME 141 (6): 1–13. doi:https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4042154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsenn, J., O. Atilola, D. A. McAdams, and J. S. Linsey. 2014. “The Effects of Time and Incubation on Design Concept Generation.” Design Studies 35 (5): 500–526. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2014.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ullman, D. G. 2010. The Mechanical Design Process. 4th ed. New York: Mc Graw HIll.
   Google Scholar
• Ulrich, K. T., and S. D. Eppinger. 2012. Product Design and Development. 5th ed. New York: Mc Graw Hill Irwin. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-7506-8985-4.00002-4
   Google Scholar
• Vandevenne, D., T. Pieters, and J. R. Duflou. 2016. “Enhancing Novelty with Knowledge-Based Support for Biologically-Inspired Design.” Design Studies 46: 152–173. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vargas-Hernandez, Noé, L. C. Schmidt, and G. E. Okudan. 2012. “Systematic Ideation Effectiveness Study of TRIZ.” Proceedings of the ASME 2012 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference IDETC/CIE 2012 (pp. 1–10).
   Google Scholar
• Vargas-Hernandez, Noé, L. C. Schmidt, and G. E. Okudan. 2013. “Systematic Ideation Effectiveness Study of TRIZ.” Journal of Mechanical Design 135 (10): 1–10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4024976
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vargas-Hernandez, Noé, G. E. Okudan, and L. C. Schmidt. 2012. “Effectiveness Metrics for Ideation: Merging Genealogy Trees and Improving Novelty Metric.” Proceedings of the ASME 2012 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference IDETC/CIE 2012, Chicago, IL. doi: https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2012-70295
   Google Scholar
• Vargas-Hernandez, Noe, J. J. Shah, and S. M. Smith. 2010. “Understanding Design Ideation Mechanisms Through Multilevel Aligned Empirical Studies.” Design Studies 31 (4): 382–410. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2010.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verhaegen, P. A., D. Vandevenne, J. Peeters, and J. R. Duflou. 2013. “Refinements to the Variety Metric for Idea Evaluation.” Design Studies 34 (2): 243–263. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2012.08.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verhoeven, D., J. Bakker, and R. Veugelers. 2016. “Measuring Technological Novelty with Patent-Based Indicators.” Research Policy 45 (3): 707–723. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.11.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vermaas, P. E., and C. Eckert. 2013. “My Functional Description is Better!.” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 27 (03): 187–190. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S089006041300019X
   Google Scholar
• Viswanathan, V. K., and J. S. Linsey. 2018. “Role of Sunk Cost in Engineering Idea Generation: An Experimental Investigation.” Journal of Mechanical Design 135 (December 2013): 121002 1–12. doi:https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4025290
   Google Scholar
• Weaver, M. B., B. W. Caldwell, and V. Sheafer. 2019. “Interpreting Measures of Rarity and Novelty: Investigating Correlations Between Relative Infrequency and Perceived Ratings.” Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference (Vol. 7), Anaheim, CA. doi: https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2019-97828
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, J. O., D. Rosen, B. A. Nelson, and J. Yen. 2010. “The Effects of Biological Examples in Idea Generation.” Design Studies 31 (2): 169–186. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2009.10.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Youmans, R. J., and T. Arciszewski. 2014a. “Design Fixation: A Cloak of Many Colors.” In Design Computing and Cognition 12, edited by John S. Gero, 115–129. Dordrecht: Springer. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9112-0_7.
   Google Scholar
• Youmans, R. J., and T. Arciszewski. 2014b. “Design Fixation: Classifications and Modern Methods of Prevention.” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 28 (02): 129–137. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060414000043
   Google Scholar
• Zheng, X., S. C. Ritter, and S. R. Miller. 2018. “How Concept Selection Tools Impact the Development of Creative Ideas in Engineering Design Education.” Journal of Mechanical Design 140 (5): 1–11. doi:https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4039338
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar