1 Introduction
-
What are the goals of and the requirements for such an ideation method?
-
What did the participants think about the developed method?
-
How did the participants behave during the application of the different versions of the method?
-
How do the individual ideation and group review steps differ during the application of the methods?
-
How did the application of the method affect the ideation outcome compared to the established ideation methods that had been tested by the same group?
-
What are the general design principles for such an ideation method?
2 Background
2.1 Background of the study
2.2 Theoretical framework
2.3 Related work on ideation
2.4 Action design research
3 Method
3.1 Procedure
3.1.1 Problem formulation
3.1.2 Building, intervention and evaluation
3.1.3 Reflection and learning
3.1.4 Formalization of learning
3.2 The creative team
# | Organization | Position | Field of expertise |
---|---|---|---|
A | Contractor | Product engineer | Maintenance methods and product development |
B | Supplier | Development manager | Product development of turnouts, turnout engineering |
C | STA | Turnout engineer | Maintenance management of turnouts |
D | STA | Track engineer | Track and turnouts |
E | Academia | Professor | Mechanical engineering design, maintenance, product development |
F | Academia | Postdoc. research fellow | Applied acoustics and signal processing, maintenance |
3.3 Procedure
Method | Topic |
---|---|
635 | How can deterioration of the track geometry in turnouts be prevented? |
Gallery | How can transition zones between rail sections of different rigidities be designed to ensure a smooth transition? |
SIL | How can turnouts be protected from snow and ice? |
OKMv1 | How can good track geometry of a modular turnout be achieved and retained? |
OKMv2 | How can satisfactory drainage of the track superstructure of turnouts be achieved? |
Phase | Steps |
---|---|
Method 635 | |
IP1 | 1. Each participant works individually during 5 min and comes up with at least three suggestions on how to address the ideation topic. The ideas are sketched and/or written down on a sheet of paper 2. When the time is up, each participant gives the sheet containing the ideas to the neighbour on their left 3. Each participant reads through the suggestions on the sheet of paper which they have received from the neighbour on their right and adds improvements/comments to suggestions, combines suggestions to form new suggestions, and/or uses suggestions as a source of inspiration to come up with new ideas, during a total time of 5 min. One is allowed to ask the neighbour on one’s right what is meant by a suggestion that has been received 4. When the time is up, each participant gives the sheet of paper before them, which now contains the work of two participants, to the neighbour on their left, and step 3 is repeated 5. The process continues until each sheet of paper has passed between all the participants, i.e. when it has been returned to the person who started working on it as a blank sheet of paper |
Gallery method | |
IP1 | 1. The participants individually sketch and/or write down suggestions on how to address the ideation topic on a sheet of paper for 15 min |
GP1 | 2. The sheets of paper are attached to a wall. The group gathers around one of the sheets hanging on the wall and the creator of the suggestions explains them to the other participants, who give constructive feedback. The group then moves on to the next sheet, which is explained and receives feedback, and this process is continued until all the participants have received feedback on their suggestions. Each participant can use approximately 5 min for presentation and receiving feedback |
IP2 | 3. Each participant takes down their sheet of paper and works individually on that sheet for 5 min to develop their ideas or come up with new ideas using the feedback which they have received from the other participants and using the other participants’ suggestions as a source of inspiration |
SIL method | |
IP1 | 1. The participants individually sketch and/or write down their suggestions as to how to address the ideation topic during 10 min |
GP1 | 2. Two participants are randomly selected and each of them presents one suggestion to the rest of the group. The participants themselves choose what suggestion to present 3. All the participants try to combine these suggestions into one concept by interacting verbally and sketching/writing on a whiteboard 4. When the group is finished with the first two suggestions, a third group member presents another suggestion. The group then tries to combine this suggestion with the suggestion which resulted from step 3. Alternatively, a fourth suggestion is presented by any participant and an attempt is made to combine this fourth suggestion with the third suggestion 5. The process of presenting suggestions and trying to combine them with each other continues until all the ideas have been presented or the time is up (60 min) |
3.4 The views of the participants
3.5 Number of concepts and ideas
1. | A concept consists of one idea or a combination of ideas, and stands as a solution to the problem on its own merit. The concept in question may address only one subpart of the problem and it may be possible to combine the concept with other concepts |
2. | If a concept contains incompatible ideas and half or more of the ideas are incompatible, the concept is split and counted as two different concepts that share some ideas |
3. | If more than half of the ideas of each of two concepts are shared by those concepts, the two concepts are counted as one concept containing variants |
4. | If a concept is a subpart of another concept, they are counted as one concept |
5. | Concepts that reframe the problem and do not specifically address the problem as described, but meet higher level needs are counted |
1. | Ideas are units which a concept is systematically decomposed into and an idea can be expressed as a key phrase consisting of a verb phrase containing a maximum of one verb, or a noun phrase |
2. | If a certain idea is used multiple times in a concept, this idea is counted once for that concept |
3. | New combinations of already-counted ideas are counted as separate ideas |
4. | Ideas count even if they are unnecessary or deteriorate the concept |
5. | Categories of ideas only count as ideas when no subordinates are given |
6. | Ideas must be shown and not just implied to be counted |
7. | Ideas in different concepts are counted as the same idea if they imply physically doing the same thing, although different words are used to describe that idea |
3.6 Behaviour of the participants
Activity | Description |
---|---|
Idea statement | Spoken contribution of an item to be recorded as a possible solution to the problem |
Elaboration | Non-critical clarification (explaining), rephrasing or discussion of ideas |
Criticism | Negative statements or judgments about proffered ideas |
Direction | Guiding or structuring the idea generation activity |
Going off at a tangent | Interaction that is off-topic and breaks the “singlemindedness” of the idea generation, whether or not it relates to other group work tasks, e.g. jokes, discussion of the group’s task in general or discussion of given directions |
Areas of focus | Sources of evidence | Analysis |
---|---|---|
The participants’ views | Questionnaires Transcribed audio recordings of group interviews | Quantitative analysis of the average value of each questionnaire statement Quantitative analysis of the correlations between pairs of statements in the questionnaires Qualitative analysis |
Outcome of the ideation sessions | Sheets of paper from the workshop Transcribed audio recordings of sessions | Quantitative analysis (during different phases of the methods) of the following The number of non-redundant concepts The number of non-redundant ideas The number of ideas reused in later steps |
Behaviour of the group | Observations Transcribed audio recordings of sessions | Qualitative analysis Coding of the following The distribution of spoken words between different activities (Table 6) The distribution of spoken words between participants The speaking frequency Calculation of the average deviation from an equal distribution of the spoken words and speaking frequency |
4 Results and discussion
4.1 Design of the method
4.1.1 Requirements and demands set for the method
4.1.2 Individual and group work
4.1.3 Sharing of ideas
Phase | Steps |
---|---|
OKMv1 | |
IP1 | 1. Steps 1–5 of Method 635 (see Table 3) |
GP1 | 2. The participants use 5 min to read through the ideas that have been added to the sheet of paper which they started out with 3. Each person presents the ideas on the sheet of paper which they started out with, and if necessary, the other participants help to explain anything which the presenter has not been able to understand 4. After each presentation, the other participants give feedback on the ideas (questions, improvements, potential, etc.). The remaining available time is used for discussions. A maximum of 10 min is allowed per sheet of paper (for presentation and feedback) |
IP2 | 5. The sheets of paper from step 1 are put up on a wall or some other place where all the participants can easily view them 6. Each participant works individually for 10 min to develop or combine ideas from the collection of ideas from step 1. New ideas are also welcome. New sheets of paper are used to document the ideas by means of sketches and/or text |
GP2 | 7. Each participant presents their own ideas from step 3 8. After each presentation, the other participants give their feedback on the ideas (questions, improvements, potential, etc.). The remaining available time is used for discussions. A maximum of 5 min is allowed per participant (for presentation and feedback) |
OKMv2 | |
IP1 | 1. Step 1–5 of Method 635 (Table 3), but with 10 min in every round instead of 5 min |
GP1 | 2. The participants use 5 min to read through the ideas that have been added to the sheet of paper which they started out with 3. Each person presents the ideas on the sheet of paper which they started out with, and if necessary, the other participants help to explain anything which the presenter has not been able to understand 4. After each presentation, the other participants take turns to give their feedback on the ideas (questions, improvements, potential, etc.). The remaining available time is used for discussions. A maximum of 10 min is allowed per sheet of paper (for presentation and feedback) |
IP2 | 5. The sheets of paper from step 1 are put up on a wall or some other place where all the participants can easily view them 6. Each participant works individually for 10 min to develop or combine ideas from the collection of ideas from step 1. New ideas are also welcome. New sheets of paper are used to document the ideas by means of sketches and/or text |
GP2 | 7. Each participant presents their own ideas from step 3 8. After each presentation, the other participants take turns to give their feedback on the ideas (questions, improvements, potential, etc.). The remaining available time is used for discussions. A maximum of 5 min is allowed per participant (for presentation and feedback) |
4.1.4 Form of representation
Design principle | Justification | Implementation |
---|---|---|
Used to design OKMv1
| ||
Developing the method based on methods proven to be easy to understand | To increase the probability of implementation To make it easy to involve new participants | Combines elements from Method 635 and the gallery method |
The initial generation of a pool of ideas with great variety | Many different types of ideas to create associations with | The method starts with individual ideation without interaction or other stimuli |
Exposure to stimulus ideas generated internally within the group | To activate new areas of each participant’s memory network High probability of appropriateness No additional work | Participants are exposed to ideas from the other participants, silently during the round of IP1 and verbally during the group phases |
Mixing idea-exchanging strategies | Exchanging ideas in different ways may activate the memory network in different ways | Combines rotational viewing and gallery viewing with verbally interactive steps |
The use of external representation in the form of sketches and text | To reduce the cognitive load Sketch and text appropriate for different types of information To facilitate the understanding of concepts Personal preferences Inherent documentation | The participants themselves choose if they want to document their ideas with sketches or words |
Including time for discussion and debate | To increase the quantity and variety of ideas Attractive to participants | Individual phases are followed by a group phase |
Added after testing OKMv1 in the group
| ||
Optimizing the cycle time | Enough time for participants to exhaust their own ideas in the first round and to review and react to the stimulus ideas from other participants in the remaining rounds | Time increased from five to 10 min during each round of IP1 |
Developing a strategy for distributing the verbal interaction | All perspectives and knowledge in the group should be considered | Participants take turns to comment on other participants’ suggestions |
Added after reflections on the method
| ||
Paying attention to stimulus ideas | Participants must attend to stimulus ideas to be inspired by them | Rotational viewing during IP1 |
4.1.5 Length of each round of rotational viewing: adjustment made in OKMv2
4.1.6 Distribution of spoken words: adjustment made in OKMv2
4.2 The participants’ views
4.2.1 The participants’ views after testing OKMv1
“Directly after this [Method] 635 we got to do this [gallery method]. […] On the same ideation topic, and then we could exhaust the topic more.” (F).
“Once you get the sheet from your neighbour you get a bit stressed, you don’t have the time to read through and understand all […] the innovations or ideas before you have to [add your own ideas], there is so little time left to try to come up with something new yourself.” (F).
“When I got [my neighbour’s sheet with ideas…], I sat wondering what I should do with them, but I had my own ideas, of course, and [… his ideas] were completely different from what I was thinking about. […] But then I lost [my own ideas before I got to write them down]. […] Now I was supposed to understand what he had [suggested…].” (D).
“We have better possibilities of [covering a wide range of ideas] if we work individually in this third step, in my view. The generation of ideas and then the presentation of them, that is when you have the common discussion. Then the group is working. (D).
“I agree […] that it was a suitable mix of working individually and working together.” (E).
4.2.2 The participants’ views after testing OKMv2
“I wrote that it is a step forward, that I think that this very fact that [we have more time] means that we can process, think about and grasp what people mean instead of just spurting out ideas. So I feel, as it were, that this is a method that, as I see it, could be put into practice.” (D).
“I agree, this was the best we accomplished, I believe. It felt completely right, all the way. [Sometimes] there were even some spare minutes, that was first-rate, I thought.” (C).
“Oh, best so far, definitely. […] I agree, I was hardly even close to thinking about drainage [before] and yet lots and lots of [ideas] emerge and then the way in which the quality is improved from [the Method 635 step] to the [gallery step], yes, it’s clear as a bell. Terrific.” (B).
“No, ten [minutes] was excellent, it’s quite sufficient, because somehow I felt there was peace and quiet and we had the time to read through [the ideas] before starting to comment; [during OKMv1] we started to comment directly, as it were, one didn’t have the time.” (D).
“I hadn’t expected to discover any ideas, but it felt as if my brain got going anyway, and I think that was good.” (F).
“Just to see visually what we [created], what we got down on paper, my goodness, we were never close to that any time before. And on a topic which I think, [although there is good knowledge of it within the group,] as for me, I have only scant knowledge of it, yes, well, incredibly good.” (C).
4.2.3 Questionnaire
4.3 Distribution of spoken words
Participant | Gallery GP1 | OKMv1 GP1 | OKMv1 GP2 | OKMv2 GP1 | OKMv2 GP2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Free discussion | Taking turns | ||||
Spoken words | 7.3 | 6.4 | 9.4 | 4.3 | 5.8 |
Speaking frequency | 6.0 | 7.2 | 10.0 | 4.1 | 4.6 |
Participant | Gallery
GP1
| OKMv1
GP1
| OKMv1
GP2
| OKMv2
GP1
| OKMv2
GP2
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | 12 | 19 | 9 | 20 | 13 |
B | 8 | 7 | 3 | 7 | 4 |
C | 16 | 6 | 9 | 14 | 15 |
D | 4 | 16 | 23 | 16 | 23 |
E | 23 | 26 | 29 | 17 | 19 |
F | 26 | 23 | 22 | 24 | 25 |
Supervisor | 9 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 |
4.4 Ideation outcomes
Method | Step | Number of concepts | Number of newa ideas | Average number of ideasb/concept | Time (min) | Concept generation rate (concepts/min) | Newa idea generation rate (ideas/min) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
635 | IP1 | 48 | 125 | 3.44 | 30 | 1.60 | 4.17 |
Total | 48 | 125 | 3.44 | 30 | 1.60 | 4.17 | |
Gallery | IP1 | 26 | 66 | 2.92 | 15 | 1.73 | 4.40 |
GP1 | – | 15 | – | 25 | – | 0.60 | |
IP2 | 3 | 5 | NAc | 5 | 0.60 | 1 | |
Total | 29 | 86 | NAc | 45 | 0.64 | 1.91 | |
OKMv1 | IP1 | 41 | 100 | 3.31 | 30 | 1.20 | 3.33 |
GP1 | – | 12 | – | 37 | – | 0.32 | |
IP2 | 10 | 22 | 5.80 | 10 | 1.0 | 2.2 | |
GP2 | 2 | 10 | 2.5 | 33 | 0.06 | 0.30 | |
Total | 53 | 144 | 3.85 | 110 | 0.48 | 1.31 | |
OKMv2 | IP1 | 77 | 183 | 3.05 | 63 | 1.22 | 2.90 |
GP1 | – | 17 | – | 54 | – | 0.31 | |
IP2 | 10 | 32 | 7.80 | 10 | 1 | 3.2 | |
GP2 | – | 15 | – | 31 | – | 0.48 | |
Total | 87 | 247 | 3.60 | 158 | 0.55 | 1.56 |
Activity | Gallery GP1 | OKMv1 GP1 | OKMv1 GP2 | OKMv2 GP1 | OKMv2 GP2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Direction | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
Going off at a tangent | 7 | 11 | 9 | 10 | 8 |
Elaboration | 80 | 78 | 80 | 74 | 82 |
Ideas | 10 | 10 | 8 | 15 | 9 |
Criticism | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
4.5 Formalization of learning and limitations
5 Future work
6 Conclusions
-
produce a great number of ideas with breadth and potential,
-
be implemented by STA after the project finishes.
-
generate a great number of ideas,
-
generate ideas with breadth and potential,
-
be easy to use and understand,
-
be attractive to the users.
-
development of the method based on methods proven to be easy to understand,
-
the initial generation of a pool of ideas with great variety,
-
exposure to stimulus ideas generated internally within the group,
-
mixing idea-exchanging strategies,
-
the use of external representation in the form of sketches and text,
-
including time for discussion and debate,
-
optimization of the cycle time,
-
development of a strategy for distributing the verbal interaction,
-
paying attention to stimulus ideas.