Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating Creativity in Parametric Design Processes and Products: A Pilot Study

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Design Computing and Cognition '12

Abstract

Parametric design is an emerging research issue in the design domain. However, our current understanding of creativity in relation to either a process or product standpoint is limited. This paper presents a formal approach for the description and identification of creativity from both perspectives. The framework combines: (1) protocol analysis for encoding cognitive design activities, providing a process-based evaluation of creativity, and (2) consensual assessment of parametric products, providing a product-based evaluation of creativity. The coding scheme is based on the creative acts: Representation, Perception, and Searching for a Solution. The consensual assessment technique is based on a series of creativity evaluations undertaken by an expert panel. The effectiveness of this approach was examined in a pilot study. Findings show the capture of cognitive activities and identification of creative patterns, revealing how they correspond to the creativity levels of parametric design products. The results identify conditions that have the potential to enhance creativity in parametric design. This research provides a promising procedure not yet available and contributes to the development and verification of a formal approach for evaluating creativity in parametric design.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Schumacher P (2009) Parametricism: a new global style for architecture and urban design. Architectural Des 79:14–23

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lee JH, Gu N, Sherratt S (2011) Developing a framework for evaluating creativity in parametric design. In: From principles to practice in architectural science-ANZAScA2011. The University of Sydney, Abstracts Book, pp 17

    Google Scholar 

  3. Casakin H, Kreitler S (2011) The cognitive profile of creativity in design. Thinking Skills Creativity 6:159–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bilda Z, Demirkan H (2003) An insight on designers’ sketching activities in traditional versus digital media. Des Stud 24:27–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hasirci D, Demirkan H (2007) Understanding the effects of cognition in creative decision making: a creativity model for enhancing the design studio process. Creativity Res J 19:259–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chai K-H, Xiao X (2012) Understanding design research: a bibliometric analysis of design studies (1996–2010). Des Stud 33:24–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Benami O, Jin Y (2002) Creative stimulation in conceptual design. In: Proceedings of the ASME design engineering technical conference, pp 251–263

    Google Scholar 

  8. Akin O, Moustapha H (2004) Strategic use of representation in architectural massing. Des Stud 25:31–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kim JE, Bouchard C, Omhover JF, Aoussat A (2010) Towards a model of how designers mentally categorise design information. CIRP J Manufact Sci Technol 3:218–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Verstijnen IM, van Leeuwen C, Goldschmidt G, Hamel R, Hennessey JM (1998) Sketching and creative discovery. Des Stud 19:519–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ibrahim R, Rahimian FP (2010) Comparison of CAD and manual sketching tools for teaching architectural design. AutoCon 19:978–987

    Google Scholar 

  12. Liu Y-T (2000) Creativity or novelty? Des Stud 21:261–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Madkour Y, Neumann O, Erhan H (2009) Programmatic formation: practical applications of parametric design. Int J Architectural Comput 7:587–604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Aish R, Woodbury R (2005) Multi-level interaction in parametric design. In: Butz A, Fisher B, Krüger A, Olivier P (eds) Smart Graphics. Springer, Berlin, p 924

    Google Scholar 

  15. Iordanova I, Tidafi T, Guité M, Paoli GD, Lachapelle J (2009) Parametric methods of exploration and creativity during architectural design: a case study in the design studio. In: Tidafi T, Dorta T (eds) Joining languages, cultures and visions: CAADFutures 2009, pp 423–439

    Google Scholar 

  16. Salim F, Burry J (2010) Software openness: evaluating parameters of parametric modeling tools to support creativity and multidisciplinary design integration. Computational science and its applications—ICCSA 2010. Springer, Berlin, pp 483–497

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Chusllp P, Jin V (2004) Cognitive modeling of iteration in conceptual design. In: Proceedings of the ASME design engineering technical conference, pp 473–485

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rhodes M (1961) An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan 42:305–310

    Google Scholar 

  19. Simonton DK (2003) Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: the integration of product, person, and process perspectives. Psychol Bull 129:475–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Amabile TM (1983) The social psychology of creativity: a componential conceptualization. J Pers Soc Psychol 45:357–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Akin O (1986) Psychology of architectural design. Pion, London

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kim MJ, Maher ML (2008) The impact of tangible user interfaces on designers’ spatial cognition. Hum–Comput Inter 23:101–137

    Google Scholar 

  23. Suwa M, Purcell T, Gero J (1998) Macroscopic analysis of design processes based on a scheme for coding designers’ cognitive actions. Des Stud 19:455–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gero JS, Neill TM (1998) An approach to the analysis of design protocols. Des Stud 19:21–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Coley F, Houseman O, Roy R (2007) An introduction to capturing and understanding the cognitive behaviour of design engineers. J Eng Des 18:311–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hayes JR (1989) Cognitive processes in Creativity. In: Glover JA, Ronning RR, Reynolds CR (eds) Handbook of creativity Perspectives on individual differences. Plenum Press, New York, pp 135–145

    Google Scholar 

  27. Suwa M, Tversky B (1997) What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Des Stud 18:385–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Amabile TM (1983) The social psychology of creativity. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Christiaans HHCM (2002) Creativity as a design criterion. Creativity Res J 14:41–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Baer J, Mckool SS (2009) Assessing creativity using the consensual assessment technique. Creativity Res J: 1–13

    Google Scholar 

  31. Wallas G (1926) The art of thought. Harcourt Brace, New York

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hennessey B, Amabile T (1999) Consensual assessment. In: Runco M, Pritzker S (eds) Encyclopedia of creativity. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 346–359

    Google Scholar 

  33. Besemer SP, O’Quin K (1987) Creative product analysis: testing a model by developing a judging instrument. In: Isaksen SG (ed) Frontiers of creativity research: beyond the basics. Bearly Limited, Buffalo, pp 341–357

    Google Scholar 

  34. Bilda Z, Gero JS (2007) The impact of working memory limitations on the design process during conceptualization. Des Stud 28:343–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Goldschmidt G (1992) Criteria for design evaluation: a process-oriented paradigm. In: Kalay YE (ed) Evaluating and predicting design performance. Wiley, New York, pp 67–79

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia

    Ju Hyun Lee, Ning Gu & Sue Sherratt

  2. University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Julie Jupp

Authors
  1. Ju Hyun Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ning Gu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Julie Jupp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sue Sherratt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ju Hyun Lee .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study, Fairfax, Virginia, USA

    John S. Gero

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this paper

Cite this paper

Lee, J.H., Gu, N., Jupp, J., Sherratt, S. (2014). Evaluating Creativity in Parametric Design Processes and Products: A Pilot Study. In: Gero, J. (eds) Design Computing and Cognition '12. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9112-0_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9112-0_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-017-9111-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-9112-0

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation