Innovation Capabilities of Engineering Students

Title: An Experimental Investigation of the Innovation Capabilities of Engineering Students
Authors: N. Genco and K. Holtta-Otto, C. C. Seepersad
Abstract: "In this experimental study, we compare the results of concept generation exercises completed by freshman- and senior-level mechanical engineering students.  Resulting concepts were analyzed using metrics for novelty, fixation, and quality. The results indicated that the freshman students produced more novel concepts and were less fixated on the sample clocks shown in the experiment.  Both freshman and senior groups produced concepts with similar (high) levels of quality and feasibility.  The results support the troubling conclusion that freshman engineering students are more innovative than seniors.  This conclusion highlights the need for increased emphasis on innovation and creativity in the engineering curriculum."
Link: http://www.me.utexas.edu/~ppmdlab/files/creative%20ability%20031010.FINAL.pdf

My notes: "Freshman engineering students are more innovative than their senior-level counterparts... , the results of this preliminary study imply that students become less creative as they progress through the engineering curriculum"

Collaboration and Quality of User Generated Ideas in Online Innovation Communities

Title: Collaboration and Quality of User Generated Ideas in Online Innovation Communities
Authors: Ye, H.; Kanhanhalli, A.; Huber, M. J.; Bretschneider, U.; Blohm, I.; Goswami, S
Abstract: Enabled by Internet-based technologies, users are increasingly participating and collaborating in idea generation in online innovation communities. Beyond increasing the quantity of ideas contributed by users, firms are looking to obtain innovation ideas of better quality. However, with the limited understanding of the phenomenon, few studies have focused on investigating what determines the quality of collaboratively generated user ideas in online innovation communities. This study aims to address this knowledge gap by investigating the antecedents of the quality of user generated ideas from a knowledge collaboration perspective. Based on this perspective, we propose that idea creation effort, peer co-production, and peer feedback will directly and interactively influence the quality of user generated ideas. The model was tested with archival data from the SAPien’s innovation community as well as idea quality rating data from experts. The results reveal that idea creation effort and peer feedback affect the quality of user generated idea. Further, idea creation effort negatively moderates the relationship between peer co-production and the quality of user generated ideas.

My notes: No doubt an interesting approach to the study of creativity, in particular an original way of studying evaluation. The paper itself is unnecessarily lengthy but is clear overall and the reader can skip details from the first sections. Some implied assumptions are worth mentioning, not a flaw of this paper only but a limitation of creativity reasearch in general: "Ideas that are vague or contain unclear casualty are less useful than ideas that are more specific", well, says who? And more accurately, "useful" for what? "Peer coproduction" is an interesting idea but in this paper its interepretation seems very limited since it encapsulates every interaction between authors (revision, development, clarification); thus the outcomes of the paper are questionable in regards to their validity and value. Perhaps even more significantly, this study uses CAT to evaluate ideas but it has two major shortcomings: assessment criteria would need to be subjective and relative. This is not clear in the paper. Secondly, inter-rater reliability indices are too low (0.53 to 0.63), making every outcome of this work very questionable
http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb7/ibwl/leimeister/pub/JML_326.pdf

A Descriptive Study of Designers' Tools for Sharing User Needs and Conceptual Design

"A Descriptive Study of Designers' Tools for Sharing User Needs and Conceptual Design". L. Oehlberg, C. Roschuni and A. Agogino, Proceedings of ASME DETC 2011, ASME, CD ROM DETC2011-48661; pp. 199-208

Abstract: Designers employ a range of tools to gather, create, explore, sort, and act on user needs and conceptual design information. However, designers work both individually and collaboratively. This research is a descriptive study of technologies employed by designers to individually capture and collaboratively share user needs and conceptual designs. In this paper we  examine the range and affordances of tools used by designers, and how  they  use  these  tools  to  share design information.  We do this by looking at data gathered in interviews with practicing designers and design researchers, as well as documents produced in undergraduate and graduatelevel new product development courses.  We  gather  a  wide range of tools from our informants, and analyze them based on sharing semantics and formality. We then introduce a model
of sharing as a cycle of capture, reflect and share. Finally, we provide design recommendations for future information tools that support both personal and collaborative user needs and conceptual design information.

Notes:

1. "With the intent of creating innovative new tools for capturing, reflecting, and sharing user needs, the goal of this descriptive study is to understand current usage trends in early-stage design tools. Based on our study we propose the following design principles as well as areas for future research:
1. Allow for translations between tangible and digital media: Future tools need to be able to translate between tangible and digital forms to accommodate for different medium preferences at various stages of the design process
2. Allow smooth  transitions  between private,  personal and  public  design  information.
3. Allow for varying degrees of formality. Throughout the design process, everything from informal to archival documentation is produced; it is important that future tools are able to accommodate for these shifts in formality

Beyond R&D: What Design Adds to a Modern Research University

Reference: Magee, Christopher L. et al. "Beyond R&D: What Design adds to a Modern Research University." International Journal of Engineering Education, 28:2 (2012)

Abstract: The government of Singapore is launching a new university, the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD), that is scheduled to take in its first freshman class in April, 2012. SUTD, in collaboration with MIT and Zhejiang University, is striving to establish a 21st century innovation paradigm that recognizes the synergy between innovation and design. Many aspects of such an exciting development are of interest to engineering educators and particularly to design educators and two are covered in this paper. One challenge addressed in this paper is the possibility for conflicting agendas between design‐centric education and the goal of becoming a leading research‐intensive university. An overview of research intended to address this conflict –that of the International Design Center that is jointly part of MIT and SUTD‐ is given. It is argued that, rather than conflicting, design‐centric education and research‐intensity are synergistic for a 21st century university. The second challenge discussed in some depth is the setting of “culture” for the new institution that encourages bold attempts to improve the world through technical innovation (“innovation culture”) with breadth in national cultures (“global culture”) bridging from Western to Asian perspectives. Relative to the latter item, a central feature are the “Eastern Cultural” curriculum items being developed by a second SUTD partner university ‐ Zhejiang University (Hangzhou, China). The breadth of national cultures and a wide academic disciplinary base as part of the education process are postulated to be enablers for developing a strong 21st century innovation‐leadership‐culture for the modern research university.

Notes: This paper provides a nice overview of the origins of SUTD, here is a collection of key ideas:

1. "Thus some in academia questionwhether design can be taught and even whether it has value in the curriculum. These debates can be extremely heated –possibly reflecting the almost negligible amount of solid evidence that can be mounted in support of eitherposition"
2. "There is evidence that the design process is enhanced by processes that are not highly structured -but have just enough structure-[24] rather than being analytically or logically over-constrained"
3. "Developing common terminology and utilizing similar experimental approaches across  design of software, electromechanical hardware, architecture, manufacturing, logistics and complex socio-technical systems is expected to force consideration of fundamentals of design as opposed to context"
4. "We expect to contribute not only the idea but to make the designed system or object have an intended positive impact on society. We believe this will have educational as well as research benefits"
5. "[We] hypothesize that research intensity coupled with design-centric education is a further enabler of cultural change"
6. "The sub-title to this paper (What Design adds to a modern research university) appears to be answered by “a stronger basis for research and for translation of research results to human use (essentially translating knowledge to culture)”"
7. "The answer argued for in this paper is that research on design can lead to deeper understanding of the fundamental process of design-beyond how to teach but instead whatto teach and mentor in order to effectively teach design and what it enables -innovation. Demonstration of the synergy of the Art and Science of design is therefore the most persistent theme of this paper"