Advertisement

‘What Ideality Tool’ (WIT) for Product Design Briefs

Transitioning from a Static Flowchart to a Dynamic Automation Tool
  • Alon WeissEmail author
  • Iko avital
  • A. K. Das
  • Mazor Gedalya
  • Pratul Ch. Kalita
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 66)

Abstract

This paper discusses the relationship between the ‘WHAT’ and ‘HOW’ concepts in the design process through the innovative ‘What Ideality Tool’ (‘WIT’). The abstract tool draws on nature ideality principles, crossing from the traditional static flowchart model to a dynamic automation tool, promoting design procedures by focusing on the ‘WHAT’ as a creative engine, instead of skipping ahead to the ‘HOW’. Many product designers rush into a design solution without thorough analysis of a product’s intended purpose. Applying ‘WIT’ in the ideation stage to create the designer brief serves as a preemptive tool for handling cognitive obstacles; this results in the paradox wherein the more experienced a designer is, the less flexible the design approach becomes. Hence, their range of ideas essentially becomes their ‘fixed design style’. The ‘WIT’ approach enriches designers’ mindset abilities, expanding the creativity flow by exposing distant connections, and promoting sustainable attributes necessary in today’s market.

Keywords

Design process Creativity Checklist Ideality Biomimetic 

References

  1. 1.
    The Hannover Principles, EXPO 2000 http://www.mcdonough.com/principles.pdf
  2. 2.
    Orr, D.W.: The Nature of Design: Ecology, Culture, and Human Intention, 50. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Christopher Jones, J.: Seeds of Human Futures (1970)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Roozenburg, N.F.M., Eekles, J.: Product Design: Fundamentals and Methods. Wiley (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Agogué, M., et al.: The impact of age and training on creativty: a design theory approach to study fixation effects. Thinking Skills and creativity (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ullman, D.G.: The Mechanical Design Process, 4th edn (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weiss, A., et al.: The Ideality “WHAT” model for product design. In: International Conference. Loughborough University School of Design, Loughborough, UK (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Visser, W.: The Cognitive Artifacts of Designing. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Veronese, R:. Advancing the Next Paradigm Shift in Design Automation (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weiss, A., et al.: “What Ideality Tool” (WIT) Product Design Briefs, Fusion and Confluence in Design Management. In: International Conference NordDesign at NTNU Norway (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Werhane, P., Bowie, N.E.: Management Ethics. Wiley (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dunbar, K.: The Analogical Paradox: Why Analogy is so Easy in Naturalistic Settings Yet so Difficult in the Psychological Laboratory. MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dylla, N.: Thinking methods and procedures in mechanical design [Ph.D. Thesis]: Mechanical design, Technical University of Munich (1991)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nelson, B.A., Yen, J., Wilson, J.O, Rosen, D.: The effects of biological examples in idea generation. Des. Stud. 31 (2), 169–186 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reich, C.Y., Greenberg, Y., Helfman, S.: Sustainability strategies in nature. In: 7th Design and Nature Conference, Opatija (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Holdrege, C.: Goethe and the Evolution of Science. http://natureinstitute.org; http://natureinstitute.org/pub/ic/ic31/goethe.pdf (2014)
  17. 17.
    Nagela, R.L., Stone, R.B., McAdams D.A., Nagela, J.K.S.: Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, vol. 24/Special Issue 04, pp. 521–535. Cambridge University Press (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wiltgen, B., Helms, M., Goel, A., Yen, J., Vattam, S: DANE: fostering creativity in and through biologically inspired design. In: Proceedings of First International Conference on Design Creativity, pp. 127–132. Kobe, Japan (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Glier, M.W., et al.: Evaluating methods for bioinspired concept generation. In: Gero, J.S. (ed.) Design Computing and Cognition DCC’12, pp. 1–20 (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Benyus, J.: Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature. Quill, New York (1977)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bogatyreva, O.A., Bogatyrev, N.R., Vincent, J.F., et al.: Biomimetics: Its practice and theory. J. R. Soc. Interface 3(9), 471–482 (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Altshuller, G.: The Innovation Algorithm, TRIZ, Systematic Innovation and Technical creativity. Technical Innovation Center, Inc., Worcester, MA (1999)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reich, C.Y., Helfman, Y.: Introduction of the ideality tool for sustainable design. In: International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED), Milan (2015)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yang, Y.-C., Chen, J.L.: Eco-Innovation by Integrating Biomimetic with TRIZ Ideality and Evolution Rules, pp. 101–106 (2015)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
    Oxman, N.: Design at the intersection of technology and biology. https://www.ted.com/ (2015)

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alon Weiss
    • 1
    Email author
  • Iko avital
    • 1
  • A. K. Das
    • 1
  • Mazor Gedalya
    • 1
  • Pratul Ch. Kalita
    • 1
  1. 1.Indian Institute of Technology GuwahatiGuwahatiIndia

Personalised recommendations