Knowledge: the good, the bad, and the ways for designer creativity

References

• Ackoff, R. L. 1989. “From Data to Wisdom.” Journal of Applied Systems Analysis 16 (1): 3–9.
   Google Scholar
• Ahmed, S., K. M. Wallace, and L. T. M. Blessing. 2003. “Understanding the Differences Between how Novice and Experienced Designers Approach Design Tasks.” Research in Engineering Design 14 (1): 1–11. doi:10.1007/s00163-002-0023-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akao, Y., and G. H. Mazur. 2003. “The Leading Edge in QFD: Past, Present and Future.” International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 20 (1): 20–35. doi:10.1108/02656710310453791.
   Google Scholar
• Altshuller, G. S. 1984. Creativity as an Exact Science: The Theory of the Solution of Inventive Problems. Gordon and Breach.
   Google Scholar
• Amabile, T. M. 1983. “The Social Psychology of Creativity: A Componential Conceptualization.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 (2): 357. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becattini, N., Y. Borgianni, G. Cascini, and F. Rotini. 2020. “Investigating Users’ Reactions to Surprising Products.” Design Studies 69: 100946. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2020.05.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beghetto, R. A. 2021. “There is no Creativity Without Uncertainty: Dubito Ergo Creo.” Journal of Creativity 31: 100005. doi:10.1016/j.yjoc.2021.100005.
   Google Scholar
• Bendsøe, M. P., and N. Kikuchi. 1988. “Generating Optimal Topologies in Structural Design Using a Homogenization Method.” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 71 (2): 197–224. doi:10.1016/0045-7825(88)90086-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bendsoe, M. P., and O. Sigmund. 2003. Topology Optimization: Theory, Methods, and Applications. Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Bhatta, S. R., and A. K. Goel. 1997. “A Functional Theory of Design Patterns.” IJCAI 1: 294–300.
   Google Scholar
• Bloom, B. S. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Cognitive Domain.
   Google Scholar
• Boden, M. A. 2004. The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Borgianni, Y., P. Pradel, A. Berni, M. Obi, and R. Bibb. 2022. “An Investigation Into the Current State of Education in Design for Additive Manufacturing.” Journal of Engineering Design 33 (7): 461–490. doi:10.1080/09544828.2022.2102893.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buker, T., T. Schmitt, J. Miehling, and S. Wartzack. 2022. “What’s More Important for Product Design – Usability or Emotionality? An Examination of Influencing Factors.” Journal of Engineering Design, 635–669. doi:10.1080/09544828.2022.2142902.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bylander, T., and B. Chandrasekaran. 1987. “Generic Tasks for Knowledge-Based Reasoning: The “Right” Level of Abstraction for Knowledge Acquisition.” International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 26 (2): 231–243. doi:10.1016/S0020-7373(87)80093-7.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, D. T. 1965. “Variation and Selective Retention in Socio-Cultural Evolution.” Social Change in Developing Area.
   Google Scholar
• Cascini, G., G. Fantoni, and F. Montagna. 2013. “Situating Needs and Requirements in the FBS Framework.” Design Studies 34 (5): 636–662. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2012.12.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chandrasekaran, B. 1986. “Generic Tasks in Knowledge-Based Reasoning: High-Level Building Blocks for Expert System Design.” IEEE Expert 1 (3): 23–30. doi:10.1109/MEX.1986.4306977.
   Google Scholar
• Chandrasekaran, B. 1990. “Design Problem Solving: A Task Analysis.” AI Magazine 11 (4): 59–71. doi:10.1609/aimag.v11i4.857.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chandrasekaran, B., A. K. Goel, and Y. Iwasaki. 1993. “Functional Representation as Design Rationale.” Computer 26 (1): 48–56. doi:10.1109/2.179157.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chandrasekaran, B., Todd R. Johnson, & Jack W. Smith. (1992). Task-structure Analysis for Knowledge Modeling. Communications of the ACM, 35(9), 124–137. doi:10.1145/130994.131002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheligeer, C., J. Huang, G. Wu, N. Bhuiyan, Y. Xu, and Y. Zeng. 2022a. “Machine Learning in Requirements Elicitation: A Literature Review.” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 36: e32. doi:10.1017/S0890060422000166.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheligeer, C., J. Yang, A. Bayatpour, A. Miklin, S. Dufresne, L. Lin, N. Bhuiyan, and Y. Zeng. 2022b. “A Hybrid Semantic Networks Construction Framework for Engineering Design.” Journal of Mechanical Design, 1–31. doi:10.1115/1.4056076.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, G., N. Khan, R. Walker, and H. Quan. 2010. “Validating ICD Coding Algorithms for Diabetes Mellitus from Administrative Data.” Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 89 (2): 189–195. doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2010.03.007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen, B. T., and L. J. Ball. 2016. “Creative Analogy use in a Heterogeneous Design Team: The Pervasive Role of Background Domain Knowledge.” Design Studies 46: 38–58. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2016.07.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen, B. T., and C. D. Schunn. 2007. “The Relationship of Analogical Distance to Analogical Function and Preinventive Structure: The Case of Engineering Design.” Memory & Cognition 35 (1): 29–38. doi:10.3758/BF03195939.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooley, M. 1980. Architect or bee? Langley Technical Services Slough.
   Google Scholar
• Corazza, G. E. 2016. “Potential Originality and Effectiveness: The Dynamic Definition of Creativity.” Creativity Research Journal 28 (3): 258–267. doi:10.1080/10400419.2016.1195627.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corazza, G. E. 2019. “The Dynamic Universal Creativity Process.” In Dynamic Perspectives on Creativity, 297–319. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-99163-4_17
   Google Scholar
• Corazza, G. E., S. Agnoli, and S. Mastria. 2022. “The Dynamic Creativity Framework: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations.” European Psychologist 27 (3): 191–206. doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000473.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crilly, N. 2015. “Fixation and Creativity in Concept Development: The Attitudes and Practices of Expert Designers.” Design Studies 38: 54–91. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2015.01.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cross, N. 2004. “Expertise in Design: An Overview.” Design Studies 25: 427–441. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2004.06.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cross, N. 2011. Design Thinking: Understanding how Designers Think and Work. Berg.
   Google Scholar
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. 2014. “Society, Culture, and Person: A Systems View of Creativity.” In The Systems Model of Creativity, 47–61. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9085-7_4
   Google Scholar
• Davenport, T. H., and L. Prusak. 1998. Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Harvard Business Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dinar, M., and J. J. Shah. 2012. A Model of Problem Formulation Strategies in Engineering Design. Advances in Cognitive Systems. Palo Alto, California.
   Google Scholar
• Dixon, B., and T. French. 2020. “Processing the Method: Linking Deweyan Logic and Design-in-Research.” Design Studies 70: 100962. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2020.100962.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dong, A., and S. Sarkar. 2011. “Unfixing Design Fixation: From Cause to Computer Simulation.” The Journal of Creative Behavior 45 (2): 147–159. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2011.tb01093.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorst, K., and N. Cross. 2001. “Creativity in the Design Process: Co-Evolution of Problem-Solution.” Design Studies 22 (5): 425–437. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6.
   Google Scholar
• Du, J., and R. J. Jiao. 2022. “Cooperative Negotiation in Value-Driven Engineering and Systems Design: A Technical Note.” Journal of Engineering Design, doi:10.1080/09544828.2022.2149179.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eastwood, C. A., D. A. Southern, S. Khair, C. Doktorchik, D. Cullen, W. A. Ghali, and H. Quan. 2022. “Field Testing a New ICD Coding System: Methods and Early Experiences with ICD-11 Beta Version 2018.” BMC Research Notes 15 (1): 1–7. doi:10.1186/s13104-022-06238-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feist, G. J. 1998. “A Meta-Analysis of Personality in Scientific and Artistic Creativity.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 2. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fernandes, R., I. Grosse, S. Krishnamurty, and J. Wileden. 2007. Design and innovative methodologies in a semantic framework. In International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference., pp. 237–247. doi:10.1115/DETC2007-35446.
   Google Scholar
• Gardner, H. E. 2011. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Basic books.
   Google Scholar
• Gero, J. S. 1990. “Design Prototypes: A Knowledge Representation Schema for Design.” AI Magazine 11 (4): 26–36. doi:10.1609/aimag.v11i4.854.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gero, J. S., and U. Kannengiesser. 2004. “The Situated Function-Behaviour-Structure Framework.” Design Studies 25 (4): 373–391. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2003.10.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grauberger, P., M. Eisenmann, E. Windisch, and S. Matthiesen. 2022. “Investigating the Generation of Specific Design Knowledge: Experimental Validation of a Qualitative Modelling Method.” Journal of Engineering Design 33 (11): 870–895. doi:10.1080/09544828.2022.2151788.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guilford, J. P. 1950. “Creativity.” American Psychologist 5 (9): 444–454. doi:10.1037/h0063487
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guilford, J. P. 1967. The Nature of Human Intelligence. McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Hazelrigg, G. A. 1998. “A Framework for Decision-Based Engineering Design.” Journal of Mechanical Design 120: 653. doi:10.1115/1.2829328.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ho, C.-H. 2001. “Some Phenomena of Problem Decomposition Strategy for Design Thinking: Differences Between Novices and Experts.” Design Studies 22 (1): 27–45. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(99)00030-7.
   Google Scholar
• Hou, L., and R. J. Jiao. 2020. “Data-informed Inverse Design by Product Usage Information: A Review, Framework and Outlook.” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 31: 529–552. doi:10.1007/s10845-019-01463-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hubka, V., and W. Eder. 1988. Theory of Technical Systems: A Total Concept of Technical Systems. Germany: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Jansson, D. G., and S. M. Smith. 1991. “Design Fixation.” Design Studies 12 (1): 3–11. doi:10.1016/0142-694X(91)90003-F.
   Google Scholar
• Jia, W., and Y. Zeng. 2021. “EEG Signals Respond Differently to Idea Generation, Idea Evolution and Evaluation in a Loosely Controlled Creativity Experiment.” Scientific Reports 11 (2119): 1–20. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-81655-0.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jiang, S., and J. Luo. 2022. “Technology Fitness Landscape for Design Innovation: A Deep Neural Embedding Approach Based on Patent Data.” Journal of Engineering Design, 716–727. doi:10.1080/09544828.2022.2143155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiao, R., J. Luo, J. Malmqvist, and J. Summers. 2022. “New Design: Opportunities for Engineering Design in an era of Digital Transformation.” Journal of Engineering Design, doi:10.1080/09544828.2022.2147270.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiao, J., and M. M. Tseng. 2004. “Customizability Analysis in Design for Mass Customization.” Computer-Aided Design 36 (8): 745–757. doi:10.1016/j.cad.2003.09.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jin, J., Y. Liu, P. Ji, and H. Liu. 2016. “Understanding Big Consumer Opinion Data for Market-Driven Product Design.” International Journal of Production Research 54 (10): 3019–3041. doi:10.1080/00207543.2016.1154208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, J. C. 1963. “A Method of Systematic Design.” In Conference on Design Methods, 9–31. Pergamon Press Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Kannengiesser, U., and J. S. Gero. 2019. “Design Thinking, Fast and Slow: A Framework for Kahneman’s Dual-System Theory in Design.” Design Science 5. doi:10.1017/dsj.2019.9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaufman, J. C., and R. A. Beghetto. 2009. “Beyond big and Little: The Four C Model of Creativity.” Review of General Psychology 13 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1037/a0013688.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, K. Y., and Y. S. Kim. 2011. “Causal Design Knowledge: Alternative Representation Method for Product Development Knowledge Management.” Computer-Aided Design 43 (9): 1137–1153. doi:10.1016/j.cad.2011.05.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunrath, K., P. Cash, and M. Kleinsmann. 2020. “Designers’ Professional Identity: Personal Attributes and Design Skills.” Journal of Engineering Design 31 (6): 297–330. doi:10.1080/09544828.2020.1743244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lebuda, I., M. Karwowski, A. J. R. Galang, G. Szumski, and A. Firkowska-Mankiewicz. 2021. “Personality Predictors of Creative Achievement and Lawbreaking Behavior.” Current Psychology 40 (8): 3629–3638. doi:10.1007/s12144-019-00306-w.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, J. W., S. R. Daly, A. Huang-Saad, G. Rodriguez, Q. DeVries, and C. M. Seifert. 2021. “A Solution in Search of Problems: A Cognitive Tool for Solution Mapping to Promote Divergent Thinking.” Journal of Engineering Design 32 (6): 300–321. doi:10.1080/09544828.2021.1887462.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, J. H., and M. J. Ostwald. 2022. “The Relationship Between Divergent Thinking and Ideation in the Conceptual Design Process.” Design Studies 79), doi:10.1016/j.destud.2022.101089.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, Y., J. Wang, X. Li, and W. Zhao. 2007. “Design Creativity in Product Innovation.” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 33 (3–4): 213–222. doi:10.1007/s00170-006-0457-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, J., M. S. Fox, and T. Bilgic. 1996. “A Requirement Ontology for Engineering Design.” Concurrent Engineering 4 (3): 279–291. doi:10.1177/1063293X9600400307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindwall, A., C. Dordlofva, A. Öhrwall Rönnbäck, and P. Törlind. 2022. “Innovation in a box: Exploring Creativity in Design for Additive Manufacturing in a Regulated Industry.” Journal of Engineering Design, doi:10.1080/09544828.2022.2139967.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linsey, J. S., I. Tseng, K. Fu, J. Cagan, K. L. Wood, and C. Schunn. 2010. “A Study of Design Fixation, its Mitigation and Perception in Engineering Design Faculty.” Journal of Mechanical Design 132: 0410031–04100312. doi:10.1115/1.4001110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, X., Y. Li, P. Pan, and W. Li. 2011. “Research on Computer-Aided Creative Design Platform Based on Creativity Model.” Expert Systems with Applications 38 (8): 9973–9990. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.02.032.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, Y., A. Soroka, L. Han, J. Jian, and M. Tang. 2020. “Cloud-Based Big Data Analytics for Customer Insight-Driven Design Innovation in SMEs.” International Journal of Information Management 51. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.11.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lubart, T. I. 2001. “Models of the Creative Process: Past, Present and Future.” Creativity Research Journal 13 (3–4): 295–308. doi:10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_07.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madhusudanan, N., B. Gurumoorthy, and A. Chakrabarti. 2019. “From Natural Language Text to Rules: Knowledge Acquisition from Formal Documents for Aircraft Assembly.” Journal of Engineering Design 30 (10–12): 417–444. doi:10.1080/09544828.2019.1630804.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maher, M. lou, J. Poon, and S. Boulanger. 1996. “Formalising Design Exploration as co-Evolution.” In Advances in Formal Design Methods for CAD, 3–30. Boston, MA: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-34925-1_1
   Google Scholar
• Maier, J. R. A., and G. M. Fadel. 2009. “Affordance Based Design: A Relational Theory for Design.” Research in Engineering Design 20 (1): 13–27. doi:10.1007/s00163-008-0060-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mastria, S., S. Agnoli, M. Zanon, S. Acar, M. A. Runco, and G. E. Corazza. 2021. “Clustering and Switching in Divergent Thinking: Neurophysiological Correlates Underlying Flexibility During Idea Generation.” Neuropsychologia 158: 107890. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2021.107890.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreno, D. P., L. T. Blessing, M. C. Yang, A. A. Hernández, and K. L. Wood. 2016. “Overcoming Design Fixation: Design by Analogy Studies and Nonintuitive Findings.” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 30 (2): 185–199. doi:10.1017/S0890060416000068.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nguyen, T. A., and Y. Zeng. 2012. “A Theoretical Model of Design Creativity: Nonlinear Design Dynamics and Mental Stress-Creativity Relation.” Journal of Integrated Design & Process Science 16 (3): 65–88. doi:10.3233/jid-2012-0007.
   Google Scholar
• Nguyen, T. A., and Y. Zeng. 2014. “A Physiological Study of Relationship Between Designer’s Mental Effort and Mental Stress During Conceptual Design.” Computer-Aided Design 54: 3–18. doi:10.1016/j.cad.2013.10.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nguyen, T. A., and Y. Zeng. 2017a. “A Theoretical Model of Design Fixation.” International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation 5 (3–4): 185–204. doi:10.1080/21650349.2016.1207566.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nguyen, T. A., and Y. Zeng. 2017b. “Effects of Stress and Effort on Self-Rated Reports in Experimental Study of Design Activities.” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 28 (7): 1609–1622. doi:10.1007/s10845-016-1196-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman, D. 2013. The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition. Basic books.
   Google Scholar
• Ozkan, O., and F. Dogan. 2013. “Cognitive Strategies of Analogical Reasoning in Design: Differences Between Expert and Novice Designers.” Design Studies 34 (2): 161–192. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2012.11.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pahl, G., and W. Beitz. 1988. Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. Nasa Sti/Recon Technical Report A, 89, 47350.
   Google Scholar
• Pahl, G., W. Beitz, J. Feldhusen, and K.-H. Grote. 1996. Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Polanyi, M. 2012. Personal Knowledge. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Popper, K. 1978. Three Worlds. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan.
   Google Scholar
• Popper, K. R. 2012. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press. –1979.–395 p.
   Google Scholar
• Prabhu, R., T. W. Simpson, S. R. Miller, and N. A. Meisel. 2022. “Mastering Manufacturing: Exploring the Influence of Engineering Designers’ Prior Experience When Using Design for Additive Manufacturing.” Journal of Engineering Design 33 (5): 366–387. doi:10.1080/09544828.2022.2075222.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quan, H., N. Khan, B. R. Hemmelgarn, K. Tu, G. Chen, N. Campbell, M. D. Hill, W. A. Ghali, and F. A. McAlister. 2009. “Validation of a Case Definition to Define Hypertension Using Administrative Data.” Hypertension 54 (6): 1423–1428. doi:10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.109.139279.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quan, H., V. Sundararajan, P. Halfon, A. Fong, B. Burnand, J. C. Luthi, L. D. Saunders, C. A. Beck, T. E. Feasby, and W. A. Ghali. 2005. “Coding Algorithms for Defining Comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 Administrative Data.” Medical Care 43 (11): 1130–1139. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000182534.19832.83
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richards, R. 1996. “Does the Lone Genius Ride Again? Chaos, Creatwity, and Conmmunity.” Journal of Humanistic Psychology, doi:10.1177/00221678960362007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richards, R. 2001. “Millennium as Opportunity: Chaos, Creativity, and Guilford’s Structure of Intellect Model.” Creativity Research Journal 13 (3–4): 249–265. doi:10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_03.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richards, R. 2021. “Three Cs Revisited—Chaos, Complexity, and Creativity: Where Nonlinear Dynamics Offers new Perspectives on Everyday Creativity.” Journal of Creativity 31: 100007. doi:10.1016/j.yjoc.2021.100007.
   Google Scholar
• Rockwell, J., I. R. Grosse, S. Krishnamurty, and J. C. Wileden. 2009. A decision support ontology for collaborative decision making in engineering design. In 2009 International Symposium on Collaborative Technologies and Systems, CTS 2009, pp. 1–9. doi:10.1109/CTS.2009.5067456.
   Google Scholar
• Roozenburg, N. F. M. 1993. “On the Pattern of Reasoning in Innovative Design.” Design Studies 14 (1): 4–18. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(05)80002-X.
   Google Scholar
• Rowley, J. 2007. “The Wisdom Hierarchy: Representations of the DIKW Hierarchy.” Journal of Information Science 33 (2): 163–180. doi:10.1177/0165551506070706.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A. 2022. “Uncertainty Makes Creativity Possible.” In Uncertainty: A Catalyst for Creativity, Learning and Development, 23–36. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-98729-9_3
   Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A., and G. J. Jaeger. 2012. “The Standard Definition of Creativity.” Creativity Research Journal 24 (1): 92–96. doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.650092.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shafqat, A., J. Oehmen, and T. Welo. 2022. “Planning Unplanned Design Iterations Using Risk Management and Learning Strategies.” Journal of Engineering Design 33 (2): 120–143. doi:10.1080/09544828.2021.1994531.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siddharth, L., L. T. M. Blessing, K. L. Wood, and J. Luo. 2021. “Engineering Knowledge Graph from Patent Database.” Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering 22 (2), doi:10.1115/1.4052293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sim, S. K., and A. H. B. Duffy. 2003. “Towards an Ontology of Generic Engineering Design Activities.” Research in Engineering Design 14 (4): 200–223. doi:10.1007/s00163-003-0037-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. 1973. “The Structure of ill Structured Problems.” Artificial Intelligence 4 (3–4): 181–201. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(73)90011-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. 1981. The Sciences of the Artificial, 1969. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. 1999. Origins of Genius: Darwinian Perspectives on Creativity. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. 2012. “Taking the U.S. Patent Office Criteria Seriously: A Quantitative Three-Criterion Creativity Definition and its Implications.” Creativity Research Journal 24 (2–3): 97–106. doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.676974.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song, B., and J. Luo. 2017. “Mining Patent Precedents for Data-Driven Design: The Case of Spherical Rolling Robots.” Journal of Mechanical Design 139 (11), doi:10.1115/1.4037613.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song, B., J. Luo, and K. Wood. 2018. “Data-driven Platform Design: Patent Data and Function Network Analysis.” Journal of Mechanical Design 141 (2), doi:10.1115/1.4042083.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stein, M. I. 1953. “Creativity and Culture.” The Journal of Psychology 36 (2): 311–322. doi:10.1080/00223980.1953.9712897
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sternberg, R. J. 2021. “Adaptive Intelligence: Intelligence Is Not a Personal Trait but Rather a Person × Task × Situation Interaction.” Journal of Intelligence 9 (4), doi:10.3390/jintelligence9040058.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sternberg, R. J., and T. I. Lubart. 1991. “An Investment Theory of Creativity and Its Development.” Human Development 34 (1): 1–31. doi:10.1159/000277029.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sternberg, R. J., and T. I. Lubart. 1999. “The Concept of Creativity: Prospects and Paradigms.” Handbook of Creativity 1: 3–15.
   Google Scholar
• Stone, R. B., and K. L. Wood. 1999. Development of a functional basis for design. International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Vol. 19739, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp. 261–275. doi:10.1115/DETC99/DTM-8765.
   Google Scholar
• Su, C., A. Akgunduz, and Y. Zeng. 2022. Design education: Learning design methodology to enrich project experience. In Proceedings2022 Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA-ACEG22)Conference, pp. 1–7. doi:10.24908/pceea.vi.15951.
   Google Scholar
• Suh, N. P. 1998. “Axiomatic Design Theory for Systems.” Research in Engineering Design 10: 189–209. doi:10.1007/s001639870001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thoring, K., and R. M. Müller. 2011. Understanding the creative mechanisms of design thinking. In Procedings of the Second Conference on Creativity and Innovation in Design., pp. 137–147. doi:10.1145/2079216.2079236.
   Google Scholar
• Tong, Y., Y. Liang, Y. Liu, I. Spasić, and Y. Hicks. 2022. Understanding context of use from online customer reviews using BERT. In 2022 IEEE 18th International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE), pp. 1820–1825. doi:10.1109/CASE49997.2022.9926649.
   Google Scholar
• Torrance, E. P. 1969. Creativity, Vol. 13. Dimensions Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Tromp, C., and R. J. Sternberg. 2022. “Dynamic Creativity: A Person × Task × Situation Interaction Framework.” The Journal of Creative Behavior, doi:10.1002/jocb.551.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Umeda, Y., H. Takeda, T. Tomiyama, and H. Yoshikawa. 1990. “Function, Behaviour, and Structure.” Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Engineering 1: 177–193.
   Google Scholar
• Viswanathan, V., M. Tomko, and J. Linsey. 2016. “A Study on the Effects of Example Familiarity and Modality on Design Fixation.” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 30 (2): 171–184. doi:10.1017/S0890060416000056.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, X., T. A. Nguyen, and Y. Zeng. 2015. Influence of information collection strategy in problem formulation on design creativity through mental stress: a theoretical analysis. In DS 80-11 Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 15) Vol 11: Human Behaviour in Design, Design Education; Milan, Italy, 27-30.07. 15, pp. 91–100.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, M., and Y. Zeng. 2009. “Asking the Right Questions to Elicit Product Requirements.” International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 22 (4): 283–298. doi:10.1080/09511920802232902.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wassenaar, H. J., and W. Chen. 2003. “An Approach to Decision-Based Design with Discrete Choice Analysis for Demand Modeling.” Journal of Mechanical Design 125 (3): 490–497. doi:10.1115/1.1587156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, G., C. Eastwood, Y. Zeng, … Y. Xu. 2022. “Developing EMR-Based Algorithms to Identify Hospital Adverse Events for Health System Performance Evaluation and Improvement: Study Protocol.” PloS One 17 (10): e0275250. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0275250.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wu, W., J. Hartless, A. Tesei, V. Gunji, S. Ayer, and J. London. 2019. “Design Assessment in Virtual and Mixed Reality Environments: Comparison of Novices and Experts.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 145 (9), doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001683.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, J., L. Yang, H. Quan, and Y. Zeng. 2021. “Implementation Barriers: A TASKS Framework.” Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science 25 (3&4): 134–147. doi:10.3233/JID-210011.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, J., Y. Zeng, S. Ekwaro-Osire, A. Nispel, and H. Ge. 2020. “Environment-based Life Cycle Decomposition (eLCD): Adaptation of EBD to Sustainable Design.” Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science 24 (2): 5–28. doi:10.3233/JID200018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yerkes, R. M., and J. D. Dodson. 1908. “The Relation of Strength of Stimulus to Rapidity of Habit-Formation.” Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology 18: 459–482. doi:10.1002/cne.920180503
   Google Scholar
• Yoshikawa, H. 1981. General design theory and a CAD system. In Proc. IFIP WG5. 2-5.3 Working Conference on Man-Machine Communication in CAD/CAM, pp. 35–58.
   Google Scholar
• Youmans, R. J., and T. Arciszewski. 2014. Design fixation: Classifications and modern methods of prevention. In Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing: AIEDAM, Vol. 28, Cambridge University Press, pp. 129–137. doi:10.1017/S0890060414000043.
   Google Scholar
• Zeng, Y. 1992. Intelligent Finite Element Model Design: Theory and Implementation. Dalian.: Dalian University of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Zeng, Y. 2001. Axiomatic Approach to the Modeling of Product Conceptual Design Processes Using set Theory. Calgary.: University of Calgary.
   Google Scholar
• Zeng, Y. 2002. “Axiomatic Theory of Design Modeling.” Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science 28.
   Google Scholar
• Zeng, Y. 2004. “Environment-based Formulation of Design Problem.” Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science 19.
   Google Scholar
• Zeng, Y. 2008. “Recursive Object Model (ROM)—Modelling of Linguistic Information in Engineering Design.” Computers in Industry 59 (6): 612–625. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2008.03.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeng, Y. 2015. “Environment-Based Design (EBD): A Methodology for Transdisciplinary Design+.” Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science 19 (1): 5–24. doi:10.3233/jid-2015-0004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeng, Yong. 2021. “Environment: The First Thing to Look at in Conceptual Design.” Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science 24 (1): 45–66. http://doi.org/10.3233/JID200005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeng, Y., and G. Cheng. 1991. “On the Logic of Design.” Design Studies 12 (3): 137–141. doi:10.1016/0142-694X(91)90022-O.
   Google Scholar
• Zeng, Y., and P. Gu. 1999a. “A Science-Based Approach to Product Design Theory Part I: Formulation and Formalization of Design Process.” Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 15 (4): 331–339. doi:10.1016/S0736-5845(99)00028-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeng, Y., and P. Gu. 1999b. General design governing equation. In NSFC Grantee’s Conference on Design and Manufacturing Engineering.
   Google Scholar
• Zeng, Y., and J. Jing. 1996. Computational model for design. In Fourth International Conference on Computer-Aided Design and Computer Graphics, Vol. 2644, SPIE, pp. 638–643. doi:10.1117/12.235589.
   Google Scholar
• Zeng, L., R. W. Proctor, and G. Salvendy. 2011. “Can Traditional Divergent Thinking Tests be Trusted in Measuring and Predicting Real-World Creativity?” Creativity Research Journal 23 (1): 24–37. doi:10.1080/10400419.2011.545713.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeng, Y., and S. Yao. 2009. “Understanding Design Activities Through Computer Simulation.” Advanced Engineering Informatics 23 (3): 294–308. doi:10.1016/j.aei.2009.02.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou, K., Gang Du, and Roger J. Jiao. 2022. “Personalized Service Product Family Design Optimization Considering Crowdsourced Service Operations.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 166: 107973. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2022.107973.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou, F., Y. Ji, and R. J. Jiao. 2021. Emotional design. In Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, pp. 236–251. doi:10.1002/9781119636113.ch9.
   Google Scholar
• Zhu, S., S. Yao, and Y. Zeng. 2008. A novel approach to quantifying designer’s mental stress in the conceptual design process. In 2007 Proceedings of the ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, DETC2007. doi:10.1115/DETC2007-35887.
   Google Scholar