Upload
joanna-rutkowska
View
138
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
(Un)structured sources of inspira2on Comparing the effects of game-‐like cards and design cards on crea6vity in co-‐design process
Joanna Kwiatkowska, Tallinn University, Estonia Agnieszka Szóstek, Warsaw Academy of Fine Arts, Poland David Lamas, Tallinn University, Estonia
Inspira6on and crea6vity in co-‐design
• Expressions of crea6vity are mo6vated by inspira2on (Sanders et al., 2008),
• Inspira6on plays a crucial role in the design process as it oMen determines the power of formulated concepts (Zhao, 2013),
• Being inspired means to be mentally s2mulated in an intangible way to do or feel something (Halskov et al., 2006).
Goal of the study
To gain understanding regarding the effec6veness of two different sources of inspira6on (structured and unstructured) in facilita6ng par6cipants of a co-‐design ac6vity in deriving a large number of crea6ve ideas in a short 6me.
The cards
PLEX Cards • design cards (Lucero et al., 2010) • communicate 22 categories of the so-‐called PLEX (Playful
Experience) framework (Lucero et al., 2010; Arrasvuori et al., 2011),
• there are two images of each card, an abstract and a concrete one, and the contents describing either human emo6ons or a concrete applicability (Lucero et al., 2010). It provides different entry points for designers, so that they can relate to material while producing new ideas.
!
The cards
DIXIT Cards • designed for a storytelling game, where the purpose
of the game is to create sentences (stories) based on the images from the deck of 84 cards.
• DIXIT cards present an abstract drawing, which category is undefined and the meaning open for interpreta6on. The designer cannot find the entry points to relate the material explicitly but can form free associa6ons with various elements presented on the card itself.
!
The experiment Comparison of the effec6veness of both types of cards in s6mula6ng inspira6on • 39 industrial designers (26 female, 13 male, mean age: 27),
• two design workshops: • group 1: 18 par6cipants divided on 6 subgroups (6 triads) • group 2: 21 par6cipants divided on 7 subgroups (7 triads)
Group 1 Group 2
without any suppor6ng tools without any suppor6ng tools
with PLEX Cards with PLEX Cards
with DIXIT Cards with PLEX Cards
Working hypotheses
H1: The use of either PLEX or DIXIT Cards results in more concepts in comparison to the idea-‐genera?on process applied without any s?muli. H2: There is a significant difference in the number of concepts produced while applying PLEX and DIXIT cards.
Study set-‐up
• introduc6on to the study, • defini6on of the habits to change (par6cipants worked in triads),
• first round of idea genera6on without any suppor6ng tools,
• two rounds on idea genera6on using three randomly selected cards (counterbalanced) (the PLEX Brainstorming method (Lucero et al., 2010) was applied),
• filling in the study forms, • Focus Group discussion.
Data analysis The round of idea2on A number of generated ideas
without any suppor6ng tools 176
with PLEX Cards 226
with DIXIT Cards 212
• total number of concepts: 614 • 131 unique statements for qualita6ve analysis • affinity diagram technique, • conven6onal content analysis.
Results
• The experiment revealed that cards helped par6cipants to generate more ideas comparing to the round without cards (H1 confirmed),
• There was no significant difference iden6fied in the number of concepts produced while applying DIXIT or PLEX cards (H2 rejected)
Results
Working without suppor2ng tools: • Designers tended to think individually, • The generated ideas were based on designers’ previous experiences and observa6ons,
• The designers admiced to keep the given idea (usually the first that came to mind) and not changing the context.
Results
Working with cards: • Both types of cards let to the percep6on of genera6ng more ideas, s6mulated the discussion within the group and increased engagement in the idea6on process,
• The cards brought openness to the discussion, • Not only the context of the pictures/photos presented on the cards inspired the designers, but also the par6cular elements visible on the given card,
• The pictures presented on the cards supported designers in expressing their thoughts, revealing their reasoning process, calling back experiences as well as improvising,
Results
Working with cards: • The cards brought an element of surprise making the idea6on process more pleasurable.
• The cards opened new context to the tackled problems enabling par6cipants to think outside the box,
• The cards enabled designers to bring the tackled problem to the context of the card rather than genera6ng new ideas for the problem itself.
Differences between PLEX and DIXIT Cards
• abstrac6veness vs. concretness of the cards – the dimension regarding the visuals (material) presented in the cards,
• posi6vity vs. nega6vity of the visuals – the emo6ons evoked with the given card decks,
• specifying the goal vs. suppor6ng unconven6onal thinking – the contexts in which the cards are applicable,
• mul6layered vs. flat cards’ construc6on – cards learnability and easiness of applica6on,
• support for innova6ve vs. conven6onal ideas – the characteris6cs of the obtained results when applying the given card type.
Summary
• The cards structured the group work, • Supported designers in storytelling, • Introduced new contexts to the problem, • We argue that designer are likely to choose an unstructured source of inspira6on for the idea6on process (DIXIT cards),
• Designers considered working with DIXIT cards as more pleasurable
Summary
• PLEX Cards were indicated as the leas preferred idea6on method,
• PLEX Cards seem more applicable, whenever the design problem has not been precisely specified, so they could provide the context and help to direct future thinking about the problem itself