An idea generation process in creative design

I don't claim that I come up with a multitude of equally valid and novel ideas every time, but aiming to do so I employ a vaguely specific and prescriptive technique. The methodology is aimed at non-routine and innovative classes of design where the expected outcomes are weakly defined and instead intend to anticipate the curiosity of users, and in turn motivate them to set out new goals.

1. Given a brief or a prospective invention, I sketch freehand as many roughs as possible resisting any tendencies to refine elements within. At this stage "I think of: WHAT?" and intentionally focus on capturing my responses to the given problem through motor actions alone, consciously suppressing cognitive expressions of common sense.

This approach allows a multitude of STRUCTURES to emerge without forming attachment to any individual instances of thought. When similarities or repetitions become evident I generally treat them as refinements and terminate the task allowing myself to divert my attention away from what I'm trying to solve. This process is similar to what an architect does at an early stage - e.g. sketching lines not knowing if the line will represent a form boundary or an ornamental part.

2. Upon return, ideally the next day or after a lunch break etc. I reflect on the sketches "thinking: SO WHAT?". Generally three or more candidates stand out for further refinement or cross fertilisation with elements of the discarded lot. If my intuition supports a strong conviction about the captured forms e.g. diagrams or layouts, I'll present them for a preliminary "everything is open to change" critique by any stakeholders at hand. The rougher and more ambiguous the better - when faced with loose and obviously unrefined forms people are least intimidated to change or contribute their own alternatives.

3. “Thinking or asking myself: WHAT NEXT?” I refine the early structures in terms of BEHAVIOURS and FUNCTIONS the user may evoke when confronted by the product I'm trying to design. In the ideal situation, the functions and behaviours suggested by each sketch elicit the intended attributes of the conceptual product or the brief represented in my designs.

Once again I face other project stakeholders, regardless of completeness, but this time I'm also focusing on the metrics which would be appropriate in the event that the design(s) were to undergo heuristic evaluation or a preliminary user panel test. For example, drawing on B.J. Fogg's model of simplicity, I may attempt to identify the scarce resources which are most likely to be relevant in context of the prospective/targeted users. Simplicity is a function of the scarcest resource for a given person in a particular situation. They include: time, money, physical effort, brain cycles, social deviance and non-routine.

A decision on the flow of iterative cycle

At this stage, if all goes well, we may have a compelling ”birds eye view” of one or several competing designs of the product (salient features of the whole system, but lacking any depth) ready for low fidelity prototype tests (rough and still quite ambiguous for the same reasons as before) or otherwise informed by the failure I return to step 1.

Providing that a sufficient consensus to move on was reached and testing or heuristic critique confirmed this decision, an interpretative or metric analysis of outcomes will elect the wining design if a number have survived this far. Next, I opportunistically (whatever seems the easiest to solve) pick individual components/elements to develop through the same workflow pattern of WHAT?, SO WHAT and WHAT NEXT? With a bit of luck, completing the easy parts may give me insights towards solving those which eluded me at the outset.

doodling and sketching

The act of sketching is an integral part of the creative process at the early stages of concept development. Three aspects of sketching constitute salient and unique characteristics.

- First, intuitive externalisation – subconscious exploration of the problem space and dynamic idea generation.

- Second, ambiguity of components and their relationships – implying fluidity of the captured structure and inviting ongoing interpretation.

- Third, expression of an unfinished/rough state – a form still open to changes and likely to stimulate further exploration and one which clearly isn't indicative of the aesthetic intentions for the final design.

The first is by far the most critical aspect and one that is least understood. The physical aspect of sketching is often recognised as a bridge between the idea 'in the head' and its representation in the world. The process of informally expressing uncertain ideas appears to have an energising quality of experiencing the emergence of new insights and a dialogue with the resulting form.

I'll offer an analogy which may help to explain this phenomenon; Doodling on paper when one is waiting or bored, presents a comprehensible scenario. The activity begins without specific intentions and is predominantly a physical act, but in time it transforms towards an explicit refinement of the emerging features. The later intentions are motivated by subliminal exploration of the rough form which itself provokes or suggests possible interpretations.

An issue related to this analogy arises in context of a widely accepted hypothesis that conceptual sketching with computer tools takes on a different and an inferior work-flow pattern. For example, Vinod Goel of UC Berkeley studied designers generating ideas by sketching on paper or using a drawing program. He noted that the designers sketching freehand quickly followed the initial idea with several versions. However, those who used a drawing program tended to focus on refining the initial design, instead of generating additional variations.

Therefore, the question is; do we have any evidence that people doodle with their computer tools? I've never observed this to be true in my extensive experience with graphic and design professionals who are constantly exposed to an environment most suitable to facilitate behaviours like doodling. Perhaps my analogy confirms the hypothesis of the diminished productivity in computer based idea generation and innovative problem solving tasks.