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：	王上易 Wang, Shang-Yi
論文名稱：	不同設計方法與不同設計者對構想創意性的影響-以鐵鎚為例 The Influence of Different Design Methods and Designers on Ideation Creativity—Taking Hammers as an Example
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：	2024
畢業學年度：	112
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	149
中文關鍵詞：	體驗設計、評估尺度、設計構想、構想有效性、鐵鎚
外文關鍵詞：	engaging design, evaluation metrics, design concept, concept validity, hammer
相關次數：	點閱：71 下載：0
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

本研究致力於探索體驗設計方法和腦力寫作法在鐵鎚設計中的應用，尤其關注其如何深化設計思維過程並提升設計構想的心理效益。鑒於鐵鎚作為一種基礎工具，在物理功能和結構設計上已近乎完善，傳統的創新路徑如提高使用效能、人因工程和安全性對其而言已顯得有限。因此，本研究旨在探查如何通過設計方法的應用來提升使用者的情感體驗和心理上的滿足，從而拓展鐵鎚設計的創新空間。
本研究分為四個階段進行：首先，在第一階段，研究生收集並分析了一系列獲獎的鐵鎚設計作品，並嘗試應用體驗設計方法產生初步設計構想。隨後，在第二階段，大學二年級學生利用腦力寫作法和體驗設計方法分別產生兩組新的構想草圖。在第三階段，對所有設計構想進行風格和表述的統一化處理，以確保構想草圖的一致性並通過問卷調查評估其創意性程度。最終階段，通過量化分析探討不同設計方法對於設計構想的創意性、新穎性和多樣性的評分。
通過以上研究，本文期望為設計學界提供一個新的視角，即在傳統手工工具設計中，尤其是鐵鎚的設計上，如何運用設計方法來強化用戶的情感體驗和心理上的滿足。筆者認為，將設計焦點從物理創新轉向心理層面的探索，不僅能夠為鐵鎚等傳統工具的設計注入新的活力，還能夠為設計領域帶來更深入的用戶體驗導向的設計思維方式。同時，如何協助設計者從以更有效率的方式評估構想也是值得探討的議題。

This study explores the application of experiential design methodologies and brainstorming techniques in the design of hand tools, specifically hammers, with a focus on enhancing the design thinking process and psychological benefits. Despite the physical functionality and structural design of hammers nearing perfection, the pursuit of innovation through improved efficiency, ergonomics, and safety reveals its limitations. Thus, this research aims to enhance the emotional experience and psychological satisfaction of users through the application of design methods, thereby expanding the innovative space in hammer design.

摘要 i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES xiii
LIST OF FIGURES xiv
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1 Research Background 1
1.1 Evaluating the Key Role of Design Concepts in Design Thinking 1
1.2 Optimizing the Real Challenges of Design Concept Evaluation 1
1.3 The Strategic Significance of Choosing the Right Design Approach 2
1.4 The Relationship Between Concept Validity and Product Effectiveness 2
1.5 The Current Status and Transformation of Taiwan's Hand Tool Industry 3
1.6 The Rise of Artificial Intelligence Technology and Its Impact on the Design Field 4
2 Research Motivation 4
2.1 Innovation and Aesthetic Enhancement in Hammer Design Methods 4
2.2 Considerations for User Engagement in Hammer Design 5
2.3 Analysis of Creativity and Practicality in Internationally Awarded Works 5
2.4 The Importance of Assessing the Creativity of Different Design Methods 6
2.5 Assessing the Differences in Concept Validity Using Different Design Methods 6
2.6 Discerning the Pros and Cons of Design Methods Aided by AI 7
2.7 Challenges and Prospects of Hand Tool Design from Personal Experience 8
3 Research Purpose 8
3.1 Evaluating the Correlation Between the Application of Different Design Methods and Concept Validity 9
3.2 Optimizing the User Engagement of Hammer 9
3.3 Validating the Effectiveness of Various Design Methods on Hammer Design 10
3.4 Developing Guidelines for Students to Choose Appropriate Design Methods Based on Design Requirements 10
3.5 Establishing a Theoretical Framework for Future Research on Creativity and Concept Validity 11
4 Research Hypothesis 12
4.1 College Student Concept Sketches Originating from the Same Class 12
4.2 The Current Research Does Not Involve Graduate Students Applying Brainwriting 12
4.3 Presenting Design Concepts with Sketch Manuscripts 13
4.4 Limitations of Presenting International Award-Winning Works Through Sketches 13
4.5 The Study Chose Ordinary Hammer Hand Tools as the Research Subject 14
4.6 Cognition in Hammer Design 14
4.7 Types of Evaluation Metrics in This Study 14
4.8 The Correlation Between Novelty and Variety Metrics 15
4.9 Basic Definition and Nature of Evaluation Metrics 15
4.10 Concept Validity Depends on Comparison with All Concepts 16
4.11 Applicability Limitations of Concept Validity 16
4.12 Evaluating Products with Compound Functions 17
4.13 Application of Engaging Design Perspective in Concept Validity Metrics 17
4.14 Using Metrics Instead of Scales 17
4.15 Participants in This Study 18
Chapter 2 CITATION AND REFERENCE 19
1 Hand Tools 19
1.1 Definition and Types of Hand Tools 19
1.2 Focus on Claw Hammers 19
1.3 Structure and Usage of Claw Hammers 20
2 Design Method 22
2.1 Methodology for Idea Generation 22
2.2 Engaging Design Methodology Based on Chou (2009) 27
2.3 Conclusion 30
3 General Novelty Metric 31
4 Shah's Novelty Metric and Its Derivative Metrics 37
4.1 Shah, Vargas-Hernandez, and Smith (2003) Novelty Metric 37
4.2 Novelty Metric of Peeters, Verhaegen, Vandevenne, and Duflou (2010) 39
4.3 Novelty Metric of Vargas-Hernandez, Schmidt, and Okudan (2013) 40
4.4 The Novelty Metric of Johnson, Caldwell, Cheeley, and Green (2016) 42
4.5 The Novelty Metric of Fiorineschi, Frillici, and Rotini (2020a) 43
5 Application of Metrics 44
6 Four Representative Diversity Metrics 47
6.1 Shah, Vargas-Hernandez, and Smith's Variety Metric 48
6.2 Nelson, Wilson, Rosen, and Yen's Diversity Metric 50
6.3 Srinivasan and Chakrabarti's Diversity Metric 52
6.4 Verhaegen, Vandevenne, Peeters, and Duflou's Variety Metric 53
6.5 Conclusion 54
7 Conclusion and Findings of Award-Winning Hammer Designs 55
7.1 Findings of Award-Winning Hammer Designs 55
7.2 Conclusion 55
8 Research Tools and Analysis Methods 56
8.1 Likert Scale 56
8.2 Survey Research Method 56
8.3 Participatory Observation Method 57
9 Statistical Analysis Methods 58
9.1 Cronbach's Alpha 58
9.2 Factor Analysis 59
9.3 Pearson Correlation Coefficient 59
9.4 T-test 60
9.5 Wilcoxon Sign Rank Test and Mann-Whitney U Test 60
9.6 Spearman's Rank Correlation 60
9.7 Intraclass Correlation Coefficient 61
9.8 Test of Homogeneity 61
9.9 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) / Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) 62
9.10 Kruskal-Wallis H Test 62
9.11 Conclusion 62
Chapter 3 RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES 64
1 Phase One; Generation of Experimental Groups A and B 65
1.1 Experimental Group A: Collection of Award-Winning International Designs 65
1.2 Experimental Group B: Graduate Students Applying Engaging Design Methods to Generate Concepts 66
2 Phase Two; Generation of Experimental Groups C and D Using Two Different Design Methods 66
2.1 Experimental Group C: Undergraduates Applying Brainwriting to Generate Concepts 66
2.2 Experimental Group D: Undergraduates Applying Engaging Design to Generate Concepts 67
2.3 Establishment and Scoring of Novelty and Variety Attributes 67
3 Phase Three; Evaluation of Creativity and Concept Validity 68
3.1 Questionnaire Survey 68
3.2 Setting and Scoring of Novelty and Variety Engagement Attributes 68
4 Phase Four; Analysis of Creativity Levels and Correlations among Four Experimental Groups 68
4.1 Basic Statistical Analysis 68
5 Phase Five; Analysis of the Correlation between Creativity and Concept Validity 70
5.1 Advanced Statistical Analysis 70
Chapter 4 RESEARCH ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 72
1 Selection and Preliminary Analysis of Research Data 72
1.1 Questionnaire Validity and Reliability Analysis 72
1.2 Normality and Homogeneity of Variance Test Results 73
1.3 Influence of Conceptual Scoring Order on Creativity Assessment 73
2 Analysis of Consistency and Correlation of Creativity Levels between Graduate Students and Undergraduates 75
2.1 Comparison of Consistency of Creativity Levels between Graduate and Undergraduate Groups 75
2.2 Comparison of the Consistency Levels of Individual Concept Sketches Between Graduate and Undergraduates Groups 76
2.3 Testing Correlation between Graduate and Undergraduate Groups using Spearman Rank Correlation 78
3 Analysis of Consistency and Correlation of Creativity Levels between Males and Females 79
3.1 Comparison of Consistency of Creativity Levels between Males and Females Groups 79
3.2 Comparison of the Consistency Levels of Individual Concept Sketches Between Graduate and Undergraduates Groups 80
3.3 Testing Correlation between Male and Female Groups using Spearman Rank Correlation 80
4 Analyzing the Mutual Influence of Multiple Sets of Concept Sketches on Creative Performance 82
4.1 Comparing the Creativity Level Correlations Among Four Groups 82
4.2 Pairwise Comparisons of Graduate and Undergraduate Groups across Four Experimental Conditions 82
4.3 Pairwise Comparisons of Male and Female Groups across Four Experimental Conditions 85
5 Exploring the Correlation between Concept Effectiveness and Creativity Level 87
5.1 Attributes and Weight Settings of the Novelty Metric 87
5.2 Variety Metric Attributes and Weight Allocation 88
5.3 Comparing the Correlation between Novelty Metrics, Variety Metrics, and Creativity Levels 89
5.4 Exploring the Correlation with Other Product Categories (Motorcycle Concept Sketches) 90
6 Selection and Integration of Innovative Concepts 92
6.1 Process of Selecting High-Quality Concepts 92
6.2 Strategies for Integrating High-Quality Concepts 93
6.3 Exploring Complementarity and Innovation Integration of Concepts 93
Chapter 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 95
1 Research Conclusion 95
1.1 Analysis of the Differences in Creativity Evaluation Between Graduate Students and University Students 95
1.2 The Influence of Gender on Creative Expression 96
1.3 Reflecting on the Specific Influence of Design Methods on Creativity 97
1.4 The Relationship and Importance of Novelty and Variety Engagement Metrics in Creativity Scoring 98
1.5 Exploring the Cultivation and Manifestation of Creativity in Design Education 99
1.6 Methodological Review 100
2 Research Recommendations 101
2.1 Exploring the Influence of Idea Sequence on Creativity Assessment 101
2.2 Limitations of Using Evaluation Metrics in Identifying Design Methods 102
2.3 Limitations of This Study 103
2.4 Recommendations for Future Researchers 103
References 105
Appendix 111
A.1  International Award-Winning Concept Sketches (30 Sketches)  112
A.2  Graduate Group Engaging Design Concept Sketches (30 Sketches) 116
A.3  Undergraduate Group Engaging Design Concept Sketches (30 Sketches) 120
A.4  Undergraduate Group Brainwriting Concept Sketches (30 Sketches) 124
A.5  120-Item Creativity Assessment Survey 128
A.6  Results of the Normal Distribution for Four Sets of Topic CategoriesTopic Set 128
A.7  Comparison of Creativity Consistency Levels in Individual Topics for Two Groups - Test of Homogeneity 130
                                    

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.
Chou, C. J. (2009). User Engagement-providing additional interaction and meaning with products. Doctoral Dissertation, Institute of Design, Illinois Institute of Technology
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：2027-07-09公開
校外：2027-07-09公開電子論文尚未授權公開，紙本請查館藏目錄

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文