Divergent Thinking in Front-End Design

Abstract

The “front end” of the design requires divergent thinking during concept generation and problem definition as engineers both explore the initial problem from multiple perspectives and consider alternative solutions. Divergent thinking encourages engineers to explore a wide variety of options throughout a design process to support the development of innovative products. Typically, divergent thinking is a focus during concept generation as engineers explore a wide variety of different, potential solutions to a problem. Mechanical engineers in particular find it challenging to consider multiple ideas during concept generation and often become fixated on a particular concept or type of concept, limiting solution exploration. Studies have explored aspects of engineers’ practices and struggles in concept generation, but little research has addressed the approaches mechanical engineers use without direction and how to support them in readily adopting best practices. Less recognized in the divergence occurs during problem definition. One way that problems are defined in design is by developing a novel technology and then identifying potential problems to address with the specific technology, a process I define as “solution mapping.” Designers must follow diverging paths in making and testing assumptions about potential problems they can solve with their technology. However, how to perform solution mapping is neither obvious nor addressed in engineering education; consequently, engineers find it challenging to recognize opportunities for their solutions. Resources addressing this process are limited in terms of existing research, empirically-based strategies, and educational tools to support solution mapping. My collection of empirical studies examined differing approaches to divergence during design and developed empirically-derived design tools to support divergent thinking in concept generation and problem definition. Within concept generation, I studied novice mechanical engineers’ approaches to generation, development, and selection, and examined the impact of an asynchronous learning intervention. I also studied engineering practitioners’ divergent thinking approaches in concept generation. In problem definition, I studied design strategies for solution mapping through practitioner interviews and developed an evidence-based design tool to aid in divergent thinking. Then, I tested the solution mapping design tool with novice engineers. As a result of my studies, I identified specific factors that limit and promote divergent thinking in engineering design. Novice engineers during concept generation came up with assumed requirements that limited their solution exploration by generating early evaluation criteria. Practitioners in solution mapping minimized risk taking and explored possible problems only within their area of expertise, reducing the number of problems they considered. In both concept generation and solution mapping, providing direction and scaffolding through empirically-derived design tools promoted divergent thinking. My research has direct implications for engineering design and education. Engineers and educators need to promote divergent thinking by considering multiple pathways to successful design outcomes. Designers can follow a problem-first or technology-first process, and the design environment affects how designers approach their task. Engineering design educators can provide explicit direction and guidance in both concept generation and problem definition processes to support engineers in achieving success at these front-end phases of design processes, improving design outcomes.