成功大學博碩士論文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	張凱翔 Chang, Kai-Hsiang
論文名稱：	評估設計構想多樣性的基礎研究 Fundamental study on variety metric for evaluating design ideas
指導教授：	周君瑞 Chou, Chun-Juei
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	規劃與設計學院 - 工業設計學系 Department of Industrial Design
論文出版年：	2022
畢業學年度：	110
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	108
中文關鍵詞：	多樣性尺度、評估尺度、設計構想、構想有效性
外文關鍵詞：	diversity scale, evaluation scale, design concept, concept validity
相關次數：	點閱：52 下載：1
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

構想多樣性意指種類豐富的程度，其在設計領域中代表設計解法的空間。現今無論在學術界或產業界，在設計初期均需要高度重視產品的多樣性，關於構想有效性的評估方法，至少包含新穎性、多樣性、品質尺度三種(Shah, Vargas-Hernandez & Smith, 2003)，然而，目前各家學者的理論、方法、與應用方式眾說紛紜，且應用該尺度的時間、人力成本過高，構想有效性的評分方法應該更簡單且合理可行。因此，如何協助設計者從以更有效率的方式評估構想是值得探討的議題。
本研究可區分為六階段，第一階段為藉由蒐集九種主題的設計作品，建立完整的研究對象清單，以便研究人員確認作品項目與件數。第二階段依照作品特性、功能、呈現形式彙整總表，並將研究對象統一製作為展板，以利研究人員評估作品。第三階段為應用多樣性樹狀圖(Shah, Vargas-Hernandez, & Smith, 2003)，分別針對九種主題作品各制定一組多樣性尺度，包含尺度層級與分群方式。第四階段根據Verhaegen, Vandevenne, Peeters和Duflou (2013)與本團隊提出的尺度方式，計算九種主題作品的多樣性分數，並嘗試探討九種主題對構想多樣性的影響。第五階段為比較兩種尺度的多樣性計算結果，包含檢測兩種尺度的相關性、比較分群的數量，以及尺度的全距。第六階段為應用四種不同的權重分別計算多樣性分數，探討層級權重與層級數量對多樣性分數的影響。
本研究根據上述結果，提出五點應用多樣性尺度的建議，分別為：(1)考量作品主題的差異性；(2)規範每個作品主題的總件數；(3)適度減少層級數量以避免重複的分群；(4)比較組數較少時宜直接觀察；(5)發展產生構想的方法理論而非計算公式，供後續研究人員與學生能更有效率地評估設計構想。

關鍵字：多樣性尺度、評估尺度、設計構想、構想有效性

Diversity refers to the degree of variety that represents the space for design solutions in the design field. The evaluation methods for the effectiveness of ideas include at least three dimensions of novelty, diversity and quality (Shah, Vargas-Hernandez & Smith, 2003), however, various scholars have different theories and methods, and the labor costs of applying this scale are too high. Therefore, how to assist designers from evaluating ideas in a more efficient manner is a topic worth exploring.
This research can be divided into six stages. The first stage is to establish a complete list of research objects by collecting design works of nine themes. In the second stage, a summary table is compiled according to the characteristics, functions, and forms of the works. The third stage is the application of the diversity dendrogram (Shah, Vargas-Hernandez, & Smith, 2003), and a set of diversity scales is formulated for each of the nine themed works. In the fourth stage, according to the scale method proposed by Verhaegen, Vandevenne , Peeters and Duflou (2013) and our team, the diversity scores of nine themes are calculated. The fifth stage is to compare the diversity calculation results of the two scales, including detecting the correlation of the two scales, comparing the number of clusters, and the range of the scales . The sixth stage is to calculate the diversity score by applying four different weights, and explore the influence of the tier weight and the number of tiers on the diversity score.
Based on the above results, this study puts forward five suggestions for applying the diversity scale, which are: (1) consider the differences in themes of works; (2) standardize the total number of themes in each work; (3) moderately reduce the number of levels to Avoid repeated grouping; (4) Direct observation should be performed when the number of comparison groups is small; (5) Develop a method theory rather than a calculation formula for generating ideas, so that subsequent researchers and students can evaluate design ideas more efficiently.

Keywords: diversity scale, evaluation scale, design concept, concept validity

摘要	ii
SUMMARY	iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS	iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS	vi
LIST OF TABLES	ix
LIST OF FIGURES	x
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION	1
1 Research Background	1
1.1 Evaluate the importance of design ideas	1
1.2  The methodology for evaluating the effectiveness of the idea is not perfect	1
1.3 The problem of choosing ideas is played out every day in the classroom	2
1.4 The correlation between idea diversity and product success	2
2 research motivation	3
2.1 Lack of streamlined and reasonably feasible calculations for the diversity scale for evaluating design ideas	3
2.2 The current scale of diversity is not conducive to evaluating design ideas for different functions	4
2.3 Expect a place in the field of study at diversity scales	5
3 Research purposes	5
3.1 Exploring Diversity Scales	5
3.2 Create a diversity scale that students can use on their own	6
3.3 Build a theoretical foundation for future scaling studies	6
4 Research Limits and Scope	7
4.1 Creativity = novelty + quality	7
4.2 Assess the types of scales, and the correlation between scales	7
4.3 Basic Definition and Properties of Assessment Scales	8
4.4  Diversity comparisons are relative	8
4.5 The effect of hierarchical connections on diversity in dendrograms	8
4.6 The current diversity scale is more suitable for evaluating design ideas with the same function	9
4.7 Talk about metrixs not scales	9
4.8 Present design ideas in exhibition layouts, not sketches	10
4.9 A variety of multivariate design samples	10
4.10 Participants in this study	10
4.11 Evaluate products with composite functionality	11
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW	12
1 Methodology for generating ideas	12
2 Evaluating Conceptual Theory in a Nonscale Approach	18
3 Four Scales for Measuring the Variety of Design Ideas	25
3.1 Shah, Vargas- Hernandez and Smith 's Diversity Scale	25
3.2 Diversity scales for Nelson, Wilson, Rosen and Yen	28
3.3 Diversity scales by Srinivasan and Chakrabarti	31
3.4 Diversity scales of Verhaegen, Vandevenne , Peeters and Duflou	34
3.5 Diversity scales of Verhaegen, Vandevenne , Peeters and Duflou	37
4 on the diversity of design ideas	39
4.1 Literature review	39
4.2 Comments and inspiration	43
5 Discuss the commonly used statistical analysis methods for the diversity of design ideas	45
CHAPTER 3 METHODS	49
1 Collect design works	49
2 Organize design works	49
3 Four tiers and grouping methods for developing diversity scales	50
4 Evaluate works and calculate diversity scores	51
5 Comparing different diversity calculation results	51
6 Discuss the effect of tier weight and tier number on diversity score	52
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS	53
1 Four tiers and grouping methods for developing diversity scales	53
2 Evaluate entries and calculate diversity scores	55
3 Comparing Different Diversity Calculations	58
3.1 Comparing the correlation between two scale scores	58
3.2 Comparing the situation of repeated clustering of two scales	59
3.3 Comparing the full range of two scales	60
4 Discuss the effect of tier weight and tier number on diversity score	62
4.1 Discuss the influence of tier weight and tier number on diversity score	62
4.2 Explore the correlation between different weights	64
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION	65
1 Conclusion	65
1.1 The scale of Verhaegen et al. is still different from that of our team	65
1.2 The type of topic will affect the rendering result of the treemap	65
1.3 The diversity scale proposed by our team can avoid calculating duplicate clusters	66
1.4 Discussion on the full distance of diversity scale	67
1.5 A Hierarchical Discussion on Diversity Scales	67
1.6 Researchers may use either weight at their discretion	68
2 Recommendations	68
2.1 Consider the differences in the themes of the works	68
2.2 Standardize the total number of pieces of each work subject	69
2.3 The main function of a specific theme type is visual effects	69
2.4 Observing the diversity of themes from high level in dendrogram	70
2.5 Develop methodologies to generate ideas rather than formulas	70
REFERENCES	72
Appendix A other non-scale and quasi-scale methods for evaluating design concepts	78
A.1 Research on Evaluating Ideas Using Non-Scaled Approaches	79
A.2 Related research on evaluating ideas with class-scale methods	85
Appendix B Statistical Analysis Results of Two Scales	91
Appendix C Diversity Dendrogram Repeated Clustering	93
Appendix D Calculation result of full distance of RANGE	95
Appendix E Statistical analysis results between different weights and different levels	97
Appendix F Statistical Analysis of Correlation Between Different WeigHTS	106
                                    

陳順宇(1997)。統計學(二版)，華泰書局。
陳順宇(1998)。多變量分析，華泰書局，8-15~17。
黃俊英(1998)。多變量分析(六版)，中國經濟企業研究所，207-236。
楊忠祥(2018)。體育與運動測驗信度考驗：組內相關係數，麋研筆墨有限公司，32-52。
Altshuller, G. (2002). 40 principles: TRIZ keys to innovation (Vol. 1). Technical Innovation Center, Inc..
Andriopoulos, C. (2001). Determinants of organisational creativity: a literature review. Management decision
Besemer, S. P. & O’Quinn, K. (1986). Analyzing creative products: Refinement and test of a judging instrument. Journal of Creative Behavior, 20, 115-126.
Buzan, T., & Buzan, B. (2003). The Mind Map Book: Radiant Thinking-Major Evolution in Human Thought. 3rd.
Bytheway, C. W. (2007). FAST creativity and innovation: Rapidly improving processes, product development and solving complex problems. J. Ross Publishing.
Chakrabarti, A., Sarkar, P., Leelavathamma, B., & Nataraju, B. (2005). A functional representation for aiding biomimetic and artificial inspiration of new ideas. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 19, 113-132.
Chen, K. & Owen, C. L. (1997). Form language and style description, Design Studies, 18(3), 249-274.
Chulvi, V., Mulet, E., Chakrabarti, A., López-Mesa, B., & González-Cruz, C. (2012). Comparison of the degree of creativity in the design outcomes using different design methods. Journal of Engineering Design, 23(4), 241-269.
Coelho, D. A. & Vieira, F. L. (2018). The effect of previous group interaction on individual ideation novelty and variety, International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 6(1-2), 80-92
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests, Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
Cropley, D. H., & Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Measuring functional creativity: Non‐expert raters and the Creative Solution Diagnosis Scale. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(2), 119-137.
Cross, N. (2008). Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product Design, 4th Edition, Wiley.
Dean, D. L., Hender, J. M., Rodgers, T. L., & Santanen, E. L. (2006). Identifying quality, novel, and creative ideas: constructs and scales for idea evaluation. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 7, 646-698.
Elizondo, L. A., Kisselburgh, L. G., Hirleman, E. D., Cipra, R. J., Ramani, K., Yang, M., & Carleton, T. (2010, January). Understanding innovation in student design projects. In International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (Vol. 44144, pp. 805-810).
Gonçalves, M., Cardoso, C., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2014). What inspires designers? Preferences on inspirational approaches during idea generation. Design studies, 35(1), 29-53.
Guler, K., & Petrisor, D. M. (2021). A Pugh Matrix based product development model for increased small design team efficiency. Cogent Engineering, 8(1), 1923383.
Hanington, B., & Martin, B. (2017). The Pocket Universal Methods of Design: 100 Ways to Research Complex Problems, Develop Innovative Ideas and Design Effective Solutions. Rockport.
Herfindahl, O. (1950). Concentration in the steel industry, Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University.
Hernandez N. V., Shah J. J., & Smith S.M., (2010). Understanding design ideation mechanisms through multilevel aligned empirical studies, Design Studies, 31(4), 382-410.
Horn, D., & Salvendy, G. (2006). Consumer‐based assessment of product creativity: A review and reappraisal. Human factors and ergonomics in manufacturing & service industries, 16(2), 155-175.
Jagtap, S., Larsson, A., Hiort, V., Olander, E., & Warell, A. (2014). Interdependency between average novelty, individual average novelty, and variety, International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 3(1), 43-60.
Kemis, M., & Walker, D. A. (2000). The aeIou approach to program evaluation. Black Issues Book Review, 35, 42.
Kim, K. H. (2006). Can we trust creativity tests? A review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT). Creativity research journal, 18(1), 3-14.
Ko, Y. T., Chen, M. S., Yang, C. C., & Zheng, M. C. (2015). Modelling a contradiction-oriented design approach for innovative product design. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 229(1_suppl), 199-211.
.Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Exploring the Four-C model of creativity: Implications for giftedness. Perspectives in gifted education: Creativity, 94.
Linsey, J., Clauss, E., Kurtoglu, T., Murphy, J., Wood, K., & Markman, A. (2011). An Experimental Study of Group Idea Generation Techniques: Understanding the Roles of Idea Representation and Viewing Methods. Journal of Mechanical Design, 133(3), 031008.
Lo, C.-H., Tseng, K. C., Chu, C.-H. (2010). One-Step QFD based 3D morphological charts for concept generation of product variant design. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(11), 7351-7363.
Lopez-Mesa, B., Mulet, E., Vidal, R., & Thompson, G. (2011). Effects of additional stimuli on idea-finding in design teams. Journal of Engineering Design, 22(1), 31-54.
Moss, J., 1966. Measuring creative abilities in junior high school industrial arts. Washington, DC: Council on Industrial Arts Teacher Education, American.
Nelson, B. A., Wilson, J. O., Rosen, D., & Yen, J. (2009). Refined metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Design Studies, 30(6), 737-743.
Oman, S. K., Tumer, I. Y., Wood K., & Seepersad, C. (2013). A comparison of creativity and innovation metrics and sample validation through in-class design projects, Research in Engineering Design, 24, 65-92.
O'Quin, K., & Besemer, S. P. (2006). Using the creative product semantic scale as a metric for results‐oriented business. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15(1), 34-44.
Osborn, A.F. (1963) Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solving (Third Revised Edition). New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Ott, R. L. & Longnecker, M. T. (2015). An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis (7th Edition), Cengage Learning.
Oulasvirta, A., Kurvinen, E., & Kankainen, T. (2003). Understanding contexts by being there: case studies in bodystorming. Personal and ubiquitous computing, 7(2), 125-134.
Ozer, M. (2005). What do we know about new product idea selection. Center for Innovation Management Studies.
ÖZSOY, Ö. H., & ÖZSOY, Ç. Y. (2019). Product design concept evaluation by using analytical hierarchy and analytical network processes. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 35(2).
Redelinghuys, C., & Bahill, A. T. (2006). A framework for the assessment of the creativity of product design teams. Journal of Engineering Design, 17(2), 121-141.
Rencher, A. C. & Christensen, W. F. (2012). Methods of Multivariate Analysis (3rd Edition), Wiley, 210.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi delta kappan, 42(7), 305-310.
Sarkar, P., & Chakrabarti, A. (2008). The effect of representation of triggers on design outcomes. Ai Edam, 22(2), 101-116.
Saunders M, Seepersad C et al (2009) The characteristics of innovative, mechanical products. In: ASME 2009 international design engineering technical conferences & computers and information in engineering conference, IDETC/CIE 2009, SanDiego, CA
Shah, J. J., Kulkarni, S. V., & Vargas-Hernandez, N. (2000). Evaluation of idea generation methods for conceptual design: Effectiveness metrics and design of experiments. Journal of Mechanical Design, Transactions of the ASME, 122(4), 377-384.
Shah, J. J., Vargas-Hernandez, N., & Smith, S. M. (2003). Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Design Studies, 24(2), 111-134.
Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379-423, 623-656.
Simpson, T. W., Rosen, D., Allen, J. K., & Mistree, F. (1998). Metrics for assessing design freedom and information certainty in the early stages of design. Journal of Mechanical Design, Transactions of the ASME, 120(4), 628-635.
Smith, G., Richardson, J., Summers, J. D., Mocko, G. M. (2012). Concept exploration through morphological charts: An experimental study. Journal of Mechanical Design, Transactions of the ASME, 134(5), 051004, DOI: 10.1115/DETC2006-99659.
Srinivasan V. & Chakrabarti, A. (2011). An Empirical Evaluation of a Framework for Design for Variety and Novelty, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 11), Copenhagen, Denmark, 334-343.
Srinivasan, V., & Chakrabarti, A. (2010). Investigating novelty-outcome relationships in engineering design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 24, 161-178.
Stefanic, N., & Randles, C. (2015). Examining the reliability of scores from the consensual assessment technique in the measurement of individual and small group creativity. Music Education Research, 17(3), 278-295.
Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual: Verbal tests, forms a and b: Figural tests, forms a and b. Personal Press, Incorporated.
Ulrich K. & Eppinger S. (2019). Product Design and Development, 7th Edition, McGraw-Hill Education.
Van der Lugt, R. (2000). Developing a graphic tool for creative problem solving in design groups. Design studies, 21(5), 505-522.
Verhaegen, P. A., Vandevenne, D., Peeters, J., & Duflou, J. R. (2013). Refinements to the variety metric for idea evaluation. Design Studies, 34, 243-263.
Verhaegen, P.A., Vandevenne, D., Peeters, J., & Duflou, J. R. (2015). A Variety Metric Accounting for Unbalanced Idea Space Distributions, Procedia Engineering, 131, 2015, 175-183.
Vidal, R., Mulet, E., & Gómez-Senent, E. (2004). Effectiveness of the means of expression in creative problem-solving in design groups. Journal of Engineering Design, 15(3), 285-298.
Wilson, J. O., Rosen, D., Nelson, B. A., & Yen, J. (2010). The effects of biological examples in idea generation. Design Studies, 31(2), 169-186.
Worinkeng, E., Joshi, S., & Summers, J. D. (2015). An experimental study: Analyzing requirement type influence on novelty and variety of generated solutions. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 3(2), 61-77.
Zwicky, F. (1948). Morphological astronomy. The observatory, 68, 121-143.

校內：2025-06-22公開
校外：2025-06-22公開

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文