A Matrix Framework Proposal for Evaluating Innovation Criteria of a Design Process Output During Product Conceptualization

  • Ravi LingannavarEmail author
  • Sai Prasad Ojha
  • Pradeep Yammiyavar
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 66)


The paper contributes to the existing Design thinking process by integrating the concept of “Design Matrix” into it. Design matrix focuses more on the measurement of innovation. The positive effects of introducing design matrix are validated through the final prototypes of the three design solutions. The first one involves users who are making different envelopes of various sizes. The second case study involves making of paper bags of standard size. The third case study involves the same set of users making office files. The paper attempts to validate the applicability of Design Matrix to three product case studies. At first glance the problems chosen are very simple but when seen from User’s point of view and by using a matrix—innovation is attempted to be measured. The authors contend that Innovation need not necessarily mean complex thinking or solving complex problems. The paper concludes with proposing future application of processes Design Matrix for complex products.


Design matrix Design thinking Product design Innovation Creativity 


  1. 1.
    Chakrabarti, A., Blessing, L.: A review of theories and models of design. J. Indian Inst. Sci. 95(4), 325–340 (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Drucker, P.: Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Routledge, London (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Trott, P.: Innovation Management and New Product Development. Pearson Education (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cropley, D.H., Cropley, A.J.: Engineering creativity: a systems concept of functional creativity. Creativity across domains: faces of the muse, pp. 169–185 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Naiman, L.: Creativity at Work. (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Müller, R.M., Thoring, K.: Design thinking vs. lean startup: a comparison of two user-driven innovation strategies. Lead. Des. 151 (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pahl, G., Beitz, W.: Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. Springer, London (1988)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    VanGundy, A.: Techniques of Structured Problem Solving. Wan Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York (1988)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Box, G., Stephen, J.: Designing products that are robust to the environment. Total Qual. Manag. 3(3), 265–282 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fogler, H.S., LeBlanc S.E., Rizzo, B.: Strategies for Creative Problem Solving. PTR Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roozenburg, N.F.M., Eekels, J.: Product Design: Fundamentals and Methods. Wiley, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cross, N.: Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product Design. Wiley (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pugh, S.: Creating Innovative Products Using Total Design. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ullman, D.: The Mechanical Design Process. McGraw-Hill Science/Engineering/Math, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ulrich, K., Eppinger, S.: Product Design and Development. McGraw-Hill, Boston (2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Otto, K.N., Wood, K.L.: Product evolution: a reverse engineering and redesign methodology. Res. Eng. Des. 10(4), 226–243 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Buhl, H.: Creative Engineering Design. Iowa State University Press, Ames (1960)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oman, S.K., Tumer, I.Y., Wood, K., Seepersad, C.: A comparison of creativity and innovation metrics and sample validation through in-class design projects. Res. Eng. Des. 24(1), 65–92 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Besemer, S.: Creative product analysis matrix: testing the model structure and a comparison among products three novel chairs. Creativ Res J. 11(3), 333–346 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Amabile, T.: Social psychology of creativity: a consensual assessment technique. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 43(5), 997–1013 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sarkar, P., Chakrabarti, A.: The effect of representation of triggers on design outcomes. Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf. 22(2), 101–116 (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Justel, D., Vidal, R., Arriaga, E., Franco, V., Val-Jauregi, E.: Evaluation method for selecting innovative product concepts with greater potential marketing success. In: Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Engineering Design, Paris, France (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Garcia, R., Calantone R.: A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 19, 110–132 (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F., Tsuji S.: Attractive quality and must-be quality. In: The Best on Quality. Book Series of the International Academy for Quality, vol. 7. ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee (1996)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chulvi, V., Mulet, E., Chakrabarti, A., Lopez-Mesa, B., González-Cruz, C.: Comparison of the degree of creativity in the design outcomes using different design methods. J. Eng. Des. 23(4), 241–269 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ries, E.: The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses. Crown Business, New York (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ravi Lingannavar
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sai Prasad Ojha
    • 1
  • Pradeep Yammiyavar
    • 1
  1. 1.UE-HCI Lab, Department of DesignIndian Institute of Technology GuwahatiGuwahatiIndia

Personalised recommendations