Supporting Idea Generation Through Functional Decomposition: An Alternative Framing For Design Heuristics

Supporting Idea Generation
Through Functional Decomposition
AN ALTERNATIVE FRAMING FOR  
DESIGN HEURISTICS
Colin M. Gray1, Seda Yilmaz1, Shanna R. Daly2, 
Colleen M. Seifert2, & Richard Gonzalez2
1
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY  
2
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

DESIGNERS OFTEN
STRUGGLE TO CREATE A
LARGE NUMBER AND WIDE
RANGE OF CONCEPTS
[Ullman, Dietterich, & Stauffer, 1988]

DESIGN METHODS CAN
COGNITIVELY SUPPORT
DEVELOPING DESIGNERS
[Gray, Stolterman, & Siegel, 2014; Jones, 1970; Smith, 1998]

effectively frame  
a problem
[Dorst, 2015; Frisch, 1993; Shalley, 1991; Tversky & Kahneman, 1981]
DESIGN METHODS CAN
COGNITIVELY SUPPORT

encourage setting of
productive constraints
[Biskjaer & Halskov, 2014; Pahl & Beitz, 2007; Stokes, 2009]
DESIGN METHODS CAN
COGNITIVELY SUPPORT

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1
What functions did students select through
functional decomposition, and what specific
function did they choose to focus on?
How did the students’ selected focus on function
affect their concept generation at each stage
(ideation, iteration, recomposition)?
2
How did the students’ use of Design Heuristics
affect concept generation at each stage?
3

Selected
Function
Stage 1:
Ideation
Stage 2:
Iteration
Stage 3:
Recomposition
# of
Themes
S1 compartments 8 TOTAL [DH:3]
2: dividers
5: compartments
1: product with parts
6 TOTAL [DH:4]
2: dividers
1: compartments
2: motion expand/slide
1: attachment
3 TOTAL [DH:2]
1: compartments
2: attach together
6
S2 space saving 3 TOTAL [DH:2]
1: hang in fridge
2: store by stacking
2 TOTAL [DH:2)
1: hang in fridge
1: flex cover
1 TOTAL [DH:1]
1: flex cover
3
S3 compactable 8 TOTAL [DH:3]
6: fold/fit inside
1: spin to close
1: cone
6 TOTAL [DH:3)
2: rotate/spin
3: bend/compact
1: cups on both sides
3 TOTAL [DH:2]
2: fold/twist
1: button to power
8
S4 adjustable 8 TOTAL [DH:5]
3: make big/small/tall
1: attach components
1: texture to cue interaction
2: customize compartments
1: colander
8 TOTAL [DH:5)
3: make big/small/tall
1: attach components
1: texture to cue interaction
2: customize compartments
1: colander
3 TOTAL [DH:3]
1: customize by user
1: recyclable
1: adjustable
8
S5 dries food 4 TOTAL [DH:1]
4: drying mechanism
4 TOTAL [DH:2)
3: mechanism altered
1: dry and moisten
3 TOTAL [DH:2]
1: multipurpose
2: assemble/configure
5
S6 circulation 4 TOTAL [DH:3]
2: vent/component
1: motion
1: human power
2 TOTAL [DH:1]
2: vent/ component
2 TOTAL [DH:2]
1: flatten components
1: toasting
5
S7 hand held 8 TOTAL [DH:2]
5: handles
3: multifunction pan/pot/plate
5 TOTAL [DH:2]
1: handle
4: multifunction pan/pot
5 TOTAL [DH:4]
2: multifunction pot/pan
1: pan topper
1: measuring aid
1: multifunction handle
5
S8 cleaning 6 TOTAL [DH:3]
2: dishwasher space
3: reverse/ flexible/popout
1: drain
5 TOTAL [DH:3]
2: dishwasher space
3: reverse/ flexible/popout
1: drain
2 TOTAL [DH:2]
1: flexible + dishwasher
1: flexible + nibs
5

SUPPORTING DESIGN METHODS
FUNCTIONAL
DECOMPOSITION
DESIGN  
HEURISTICS
[van Eyk, 2011; Umeda &
Tomiyama, 1997]
[Christian et al., 2012; Daly et al.,
2012; Yilmaz & Seifert, 2010; Yilmaz
et al., 2010, 2014]

DESIGN HEURISTICS
Provides prompts to help
designers generate
alternatives that vary in
nature, discouraging
fixation and encouraging
divergent patterns of
thinking
[Yilmaz, Daly, Seifert, &
Gonzalez, 2011; Yilmaz, Seifert,
& Gonzalez, 2010]
Derived from empirical
evidence of industrial and
engineering designs
[Daly et al., 2012; Yilmaz,
Christian, Daly, Seifert, &
Gonzalez, 2012;  
Yilmaz & Seifert, 2010]
Validated through a range
of product analysis, case
studies, and protocol
analyses, in both
educational and
professional contexts
[e.g., Yilmaz & Seifert, 2009;
Yilmaz et al., 2011; Yilmaz et al.,
2010; Yilmaz et al., 2013;
Yilmaz, Daly, Christian, Seifert, &
Gonzalez, 2014]

METHOD
• 20 junior-level undergraduate industrial design students

• Previously organized into teams of 4-5 students

• Three-hour class session in the fourth week of the semester

• Analysis of eight participants from two teams

DESIGN PROJECT
“
”
Develop an innovative kitchen
product related to rising food
costs, the future of food, or the
unique needs of millennials

DESIGN PROJECT
INDIVIDUAL
LADDERED PROBLEM
STATEMENTS
GROUP PROBLEM
STATEMENT
15 MARKER COMPS
FIRST FOUR WEEKS
INDIVIDUAL
FUNCTIONAL
DECOMPOSITION
IDEATION, ITERATION,
RECOMPOSITION
60 MINUTES
TEAM
AFFINITY  
DIAGRAMMING
ITERATION
60 MINUTES

DESIGN PROJECT
INDIVIDUAL
LADDERED PROBLEM
STATEMENTS
GROUP PROBLEM
STATEMENT
15 MARKER COMPS
FIRST
INDIVIDUAL
FUNCTIONAL
DECOMPOSITION
IDEATION, ITERATION,
RECOMPOSITION
60 MINUTES
TEAM
AFFINITY
DIAGRAMMING
ITERATION
60

INTERVENTION STRUCTURE
DECOMPOSITION RECOMPOSITION
TEAMINDIVIDUAL
IDEATION ITERATIONITERATION RECOMPOSITION
[See the following reference for more details on team interactions: Gray, C. M., Yilmaz, S., Daly, S.,
Seifert, C. M., & Gonzalez, R. (2015, June). What Problem Are We Solving? Encouraging Idea Generation and
Effective Team Communication. In LearnxDesign: The 3rd International Conference for Design Education
Researchers and PreK-16 Design Educators (pp. 308-329). Chicago, IL: School of the Art Institute of Chicago.]

1
What functions did students select through
functional decomposition, and what specific
function did they choose to focus on?
Selected
Function
S1 compartments
S2 space saving
S3 compactable
S4 adjustable
S5 dries food
S6 circulation
S7 hand held
S8 cleaning
DIRECTIVE
a discrete physical component or
interaction with a clear action sequence
DESCRIPTIVE
desired design characteristics leading to
a more abstract sense of the component
or interaction that might be indicated
4
2

How did the students’ selected focus on function
affect their concept generation at each stage
(ideation, iteration, recomposition)?
2
IDEATION
heating core
ITERATION
detachable top
RECOMPOSITION
doubles as storage

3
IDEATION
n=44 of 49
primarily physical
transformations
used subset of cards
(often just one)

3
IDEATION IDEATION
n=44 of 49
primarily physical
transformations
(often just one)
n=33 of 38
direct descendants;
one element altered
synthetic use;
existing concept
with new feature/
altered form

3
IDEATION IDEATION RECOMPOSITION
n=44 of 49
primarily physical
transformations
(often just one)
n=33 of 38
direct descendants;
one element altered
synthetic use;
existing concept
with new feature/
altered form
n=12 of 22
combining/selecting/
recontextualizing
synthetic use; existing
concept with new
feature/altered form

DESIGN METHODS CAN BE SYNERGISTICALLY
COMBINED TO SUPPORT DESIGNERS AS
THEY EXPLICITLY SET CONSTRAINTS, USING
CONSTRAINED PROBLEM FRAMINGS TO
CREATE INNOVATIVE CONCEPTS AND
EXPAND DESIGNERS’ UNDERSTANDING OF
THE LARGER SOLUTION SPACE.

Thank You
COLINGRAY.ME
DESIGNHEURISTICS.COM
This research is funded by the National Science Foundation, Division
of Undergraduate Education, Transforming Undergraduate Education
in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (TUES Type II)
Grants # 1323251 and #1322552.

Supporting Idea Generation Through Functional Decomposition: An Alternative Framing For Design Heuristics

Supporting Idea Generation Through Functional Decomposition: An Alternative Framing For Design Heuristics

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Supporting Idea Generation Through Functional Decomposition: An Alternative Framing For Design Heuristics (20)

More from colin gray (15)

Recently uploaded (20)

Supporting Idea Generation Through Functional Decomposition: An Alternative Framing For Design Heuristics