Open Research Online
The Open University’s repository of research publications
and other research outputs
Case studies of creativity in innovative product
development
Journal Article
How to cite:
Roy, Robin (1993). Case studies of creativity in innovative product development. Design Studies, 14(4)
pp. 423–443.
For guidance on citations see FAQs.
c 1993 Elsevier Ltd
Version: Accepted Manuscript
Link(s) to article on publisher’s website:
http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/0142-694X(93)80016-6
Copyright and Moral Rights for the articles on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other
copyright owners. For more information on Open Research Online’s data policy on reuse of materials please
consult the policies page.
oro.open.ac.uk
REVISED VERSION March 93 (Discard previous version)
Case Studies of Creativity in Innovative Product
Development
Robin Roy
Design Discipline, Faculty of Technology, The Open University, Milton Keynes MK7
6AA, UK.
Keywords: design, product development, creativity, innovations
1
INTRODUCTION
Case Studies of creative designers and innovators can reveal much useful
understanding and insight into:
• the product development process;
• the role of creative thinking in product development, where creative design
ideas come from and how they are developed into working products;
• the problems faced by designers and inventors in getting novel products on to
the market as commercial innovations.
This paper examines some of these questions through case studies of creative
individuals who have invented, designed, developed and introduced innovative
products. The individuals and products are:
• James Dyson, an inventor, entrepreneur and product designer, and his
innovative designs of wheelbarrow and vacuum cleaner;
• Mark Sanders, a product designer and design consultant, and his novel design
of folding bicycle.
2
In addition brief comparison is made between these cases and similar examples
of innovative mechanical products created by other individual
inventor/designers.
These are cases of designers and innovators either working alone or in a small
consultancy business and the focus is on how creative individuals conceive ideas
and develop them. Nevertheless, the insights into the creative process provided
by these cases are also relevant to the characteristics and practices of designers
and engineers working in large R & D and design teams.
2
RESEARCH METHOD
The case studies were developed using a similar research method. This first
involved background research on the products and inventor/designers
concerned, using published articles, patents, etc., followed by preliminary
interviews with the individuals. Then in-depth interviews with the individuals
were conducted. Finally, material gathered at the interviews – including
promotional material, archive drawings and notes, photographs, etc. – was
consulted and a further search for published information was made.
The case studies were originally prepared as educational material for an
undergraduate Open University design course, entitled Design: Principles and
Practice which was first presented in 1992. Video programmes for this course
were made using recordings made during the interviews. These videos and the
full interview transcripts provided a valuable source of information for the
material in this paper.
3
THE CASE STUDIES
The case studies presented in this section were chosen to help provide an
understanding of the motivations of two creative inventor/designers; their
sources of ideas; their different approaches to developing those ideas; their use
of drawing and modelling at different stages of product development; their need
for specific knowledge and expertise and their use of tools such as creative
thinking techniques and computer-aided design (CAD). The cases also illustrate
some of the difficulties faced by British inventors and designers in
commercialising innovative products.
3
James Dyson – the Ballbarrow and Cyclone
James Dyson is an inventor and designer, trained at the Royal College of Art,
who directs a small research, design and development company based near
Bath. He is best known for two products; a wheelbarrow with a ball-shaped
wheel called the Ballbarrow and a novel type of domestic cleaner based on the
cyclone principle, called the Cyclone or ‘G-force’ vacuum cleaner. The creative
and innovative processes behind the development of these products is outlined
below.
The Ballbarrow
Many innovative designs arise from a creative individual’s dissatisfaction with,
and desire to improve, existing products – what has been termed ‘constructive
discontent’. In this case it was Dyson’s experience of using of a conventional
barrow whose wheel sunk into soft surfaces, whose body shape was poor for
mixing cement and which was difficult to tip, that stimulated him to design the
Ballbarrow (Figure 1). Dyson got the key idea for a ball-shaped wheel from his
experience as a designer in an engineering company called Rotork, where he
learned about balloon tyres produced by rotational moulding for amphibious
vehicles. This is a clear case of the transfer of an idea and technology from one
application to another.
From this basic idea, Dyson developed the Ballbarrow concept, from initial
sketches and drawings, to a prototype with a fibre-glass wheel moulded around
a football, to patents and the finished design.
Dyson is an entrepeneur as well as an inventor/designer and always designs
with manufacturing constraints and market potential in mind. With a relatively
low investment in tooling required, he saw an opportunity to set up a business
to make and sell the Ballbarrow.
Existing wholesalers and retailers of garden equipment did not think this novel
design would sell and so Dyson initially marketed the Ballbarrow by mail order.
He discovered that it sold well, even at about three times the price of
conventional wheelbarrows. The Ballbarrow was launched in 1975 and after
about four years Dyson sold the business to a major manufacturer. The
Ballbarrow is still in production over fifteen years after its introduction and is
now widely available through retailers.
4
Figures 1 and 2
The Cylone vacuum cleaner
Dyson’s next invention and enterprise arose from a production problem in the
Ballbarrow factory. The resin powder used to coat the metal parts of the
Ballbarrow kept clogging the fitration system. Dyson was advised to install an
industrial cyclone (similar to that used to remove dust from the air in sawmills
and other industrial plant) to separate the fine powder from the air. While
installing the cyclone James Dyson got the idea for a domestic cleaner that used
the cyclone principle to separate the dust from dirty air (see Figure 3). Although
it may be argued that the cyclone cleaner idea arose by chance, it is significant
that Dyson is always on the lookout for such ideas and ‘chance favours the
prepared mind’. As with the Ballbarrow, Dyson’s cyclone cleaner involved a
mental transfer of technology from one application to another – ‘We’re never
original’ he observed, ‘there are always connections somewhere’.
Dyson established the basic technical feasibility of his idea by testing a simple
cardboard model cylone fitted to a conventional vacuum cleaner. Dyson then
considered the commercial potential of his invention before attempting to
develop it. In this case tooling costs were likely to be high and it would therefore
be necessary to license production to a major manufacturer. However, since
vacuum cleaner technology had been static for years, he considered that the
price of a radically new cleaner could be set sufficiently high for it to be a viable
proposition.
Conceiving the basic idea behind the cyclone cleaner was, however, only the
beginning of a lengthy research, design and development process. Determining
the precise shapes of the cyclones needed to efficiently separate coarse particles
and fine dust entailed Dyson in making and testing many thousands of brass,
aluminium and perspex models in his workshop (Figure 4). He argues that this
empirical ‘cut and try’ approach was necessary because none of the theories
about how cyclones worked could provide the answers he wanted. Nevertheless,
other individuals might have attempted to model the cyclone mathematically
before proceeding to empirical experimenation.
The first protoype, with two cyclones, one for particles and one for dust, placed
side-by-side was built in 1981 (Figure 4 – centre). This innovative design was an
5
upright cleaner that did not clog or lose power as it filled with dust, was easy to
empty and had a built-in retractable hose to provide the functions of a cylinder
vacuum cleaner. Its design involved Dyson’s combination of skills as inventor,
engineer and industrial designer.
Figures 3, 4 and 5
Dyson showed his prototype cyclone cleaner to the two major UK manufacturers
of vacuum cleaners. Although keen to see his invention, these manufacturers
were not willing to license it for production. Dyson believes that this rejection
was partly due to the ‘not invented here’ syndrome and partly because such a
radically new product represented too great a risk and challenge to the
established technology. Undeterred, Dyson conducted further design and
development work and produced a completely new design with concentric
cyclones plus other improved features (the ‘G-force vacuum cleaner’ – see Figure
3 and Figure 4 -left). He deliberately designed the product to be coloured pink to
emphasis its innovativeness and made the cylone enclosure transparent so that
customers would be be to observe the swirling dust particles. ‘From a market
standpoint’, Dyson argues, ‘if the product contains any new ideas then it is
absolutely essential that the product be visually different’. 1
This design was successfully licensed in 1986 to a Japanese manufacturer after an
abortive contract involving a British, an Italian and a US firm. The US firm
subsequently copied the cyclone cleaner, which forced Dyson into very costly
patent litigation. In the early 1990s the pink vacuum cleaner continued in
production in Japan in limited numbers for design-conscious customers willing
to pay £1100 for the machine. However, by then Dyson had licenced another US
firm to produce a cyclone cleaner called the ‘Fantom’ which was coloured black
and sold at a more realistic price of about $300. In 1993 Dyson’s company
launched in the UK another new design of cyclone cleaner, the Dyson Dual
Cyclone (Figure 5). This was priced at £199, comparable to that of top-of therange conventional vacuum cleaners from the major manufacturers which had
earlier rejected the cyclone concept.
Dyson’s company has developed or is designing several other products using
the cyclone principle, including a dry powder carpet cleaner, a wet-and-dry tank
cleaner, a stick-shaped compact cleaner, a back-pack industrial cleaner and a
6
device for removing soot from diesel exhaust. Dyson is therefore using his
invention as the basis for a whole family of designs.
Dyson’s creative approach
Dyson combines the ability to conceive and develop technical inventions with
the design skills to translate those inventions into attractive products. His
particular approach to invention and creative design depends on getting ideas
and solving problems when working with and observing physical objects (what
Thring and Laithwaite 2 call ‘thinking with the hands’) rather than by drawing
or theorising. Dyson says he almost never solves problems by getting
‘brainwaves in the bath’ – on the classic psychological model of creativity 3 – for
him solutions come when ‘welding or hammering something in the workshop’.
Dyson also believes that at the initial concept stage of an invention or new
design it is best not to be too expert because the innovator has to question
established ideas. However, in order to develop an idea into something that
works and can be economically manufactured it is usually necessary to become
highly expert technically. He observed: ‘The more you get involved and study
something in depth, the more creative ideas arise. You can’t create marketable
innovations as a amateur.’ Fortunately, acquiring the necessary in-depth
expertise is not very difficult when focussed on a finite problem and specific
area of knowledge.
Dyson’s company makes extensive use of CAD running on personal computers
for a variety of purposes, especially producing engineering and presentation
drawings and analysing test results. Dyson does not regard CAD technology to
be directly relevant to creative design, but it can liberate time formerly required
for routine drawing and other tasks for creative work.
Thus, for Dyson, innovation is a matter of having good ideas based on
experience and careful observation of the real world followed by hard work
involving practical skills and technical expertise to convert that idea into a
marketable product.
Mark Sanders – the Strida
7
The Strida is an innovative design of folding bicycle intended for short distance
use and to link with other modes of transport. Mark Sanders designed the Strida
while he was a mature postgraduate student on the joint Royal College of
Art/Imperial College Industrial Design Engineering course (although he had
been thinking about folding bicycles while working as a mechanical engineer
before joining the course). As with the Ballbarrow the Strida arose from personal
need, Sanders was commuting from Windsor to London and felt that a folding
bicycle would both meet his transport needs and provide a suitable college
project.
Specification
Having decided on a folding bike, the starting point – as in most well-managed
design projects – was a specification. The main points of the specification drawn
up by Sanders, after reviewing the current state of the art in folding bicycle
design, are shown in the box below.
PROPOSED FOLDING BICYCLE 4
A folding bicycle for short journeys with emphasis on low cost, simplicity and
ease of use.
Draft Specification
1
Cost – low pricing essential i.e retail about £100 […]
2
Foldability – must be very simple and obvious, ideally taking less than 10
seconds.
3
Appearance – must look simple (most folding bicycles look complex – a
mass of tubes, spokes and cables); must look ‘modern’ and fashionable.
4
Original – ideally a new configuration rather than a folding version of an
existing configuration – patentable.
5
Ease of handling when folded – must be easy to handle on public transport,
without any sharp bits sticking out, and must fit in most car boots.
6
Weight – must be light enough to be carried i.e less than 25 pounds.
7
Cleanliness – must be clean and require minimum maintenance.
8
8
Additional features – to appeal to both non-cyclists and cyclists for short
suburban journeys, possibly in conjunction with other forms of transport
i.e commuting.
Basic concept
What general form of folding bicycle would satisfy the specification Sanders had
set himself? Often an idea for solving a problem will arise from an individual
mentally ‘immersing themselves in the problem’. Sanders did this by spending a
long time thinking about folding bicycles and jotting down ideas as they
occurred. Realising that none of the existing types of folding bike were
satisfactory, he turned for inspiration to other folding devices. The Maclaren
baby buggy (a very successful design of folding childs’ pushchair) led Sanders to
the basic concept behind the Strida. This was a bike that would fold up, not into
the smallest size possible, but like the buggy, into ‘a stick with wheels at one
end’ (Figure 6). Like the buggy, such a bicycle could be carried in car boots, in
buses and on trains. Here is a clear case of an analogy (in this case an object with
a similar function) providing the basic concept for an innovative design.
Figure 6
Conceptual design
The next step was to find a configuration that would fold into the desired form.
For this conceptual design stage Sanders again ‘immersed himself in the
problem’ by making sketches of as many designs of folding bicycle as he could
find in the literature and elsewhere and sketching new ideas as they occurred
(Figure 7). Two basic configurations – an X-shaped and a triangular frame emerged after two months researching, thinking and sketching. Alternative
forms of these basic configurations with different folding and drive mechanisms
were systematically checked against the specification on a matrix and the choice
verified with the aid of simple wire models (Figure 8). Sanders chose the
triangular frame configuration because it was novel and therefore could be
patented. This choice was further checked by simple calculations of the loads
and stresses in the frame members and by building an adjustable test rig from
available cycle components to test basic ergonomics and steering characteristics.
Figures 7 and 8
9
Detail design
Having established the basic configuration, more detailed aspects of the design
had to be tackled. These also required considerable creativity.
For example, on the wire model the triangular frame folded using a slider crank
mechanism (the front end of the bottom tube sliding up the front tube). But for
the wheels to fold together, this concept was abandoned in favour of the simpler
solution of a joint between the bottom and front tubes.
Sanders conceived the design of the bottom and top joints by different
approaches. The bottom joint design arose from thinking of other objects that
easily disconnect. A car seat belt clasp provided the concept (Figure 9) – another
clear example of analogical thinking in creative design. For the top joint Sanders
was having difficulties with the mechanical design. So he turned to an approach
of thinking visually – ‘what would look good at the top of the triangle’ – from the
viewpoint of the rider. This provided the inspiration which lead to the design of
a ball and socket top joint. As before Sanders used sketching extensively to
‘clarify and develop the ideas I was having in my head’.
After a lot of further detailed design work, including decisions on materials,
calculations to check dimensions of components, etc., Sanders was able to patent
his invention (Figure 10) and build the first working prototype.
Figures 9, 10 and 11
Manufacture and marketing
Sanders attempted, unsucessfully, to interest several manufacturers in making
and marketing his patented folding bicycle. It was only after the first prototype
was exhibited at the Royal College of Art degree show and featured in The
Sunday Times in 1985 that manufacturers began to show interest. This led to an
agreement with an entrepreneur who established a company to put the design
into production.
The production version of the Strida has larger tube diameters than the
prototype for extra stiffness and several prototype components were redesigned
so as to be more economical to manufacture. The Strida has several unique
features including a triangular frame constructed from bonded aluminium, a
toothed belt drive and several plastics components (Figure 11).
10
The Strida was launched in 1987 at £189 and sold well in Japan, Italy, Germany
and Scandinavia, but less well in the conservative UK market. The company
marketing the (then Portugese-manufactured) Strida ceased trading in 1992, after
some 25,000 machines had been sold. The patents reverted back to Sanders, who
then assigned them to the British Technology Group to license to manufacturers
around the world. Future production is most likely to be in Japan or the USA.
Computer-Aided Design
Since the Strida project Sanders has made considerable use of computer-aided
design running on his personal computer. Although the original Strida was not
designed using CAD, Sanders used his computer to produce the drawings for a
steel-frame version, and the system Sanders uses could have been used to
display animated 3D models of alternative frame configurations. This latter
technique Sanders uses very effectively for other projects in his work as an
independent design consultant. He views CAD as a tool that helps him rapidly
explore, refine and present design ideas. It is most useful after the conceptual
stage because the computer system is not as fast as sketching for exploring ideas.
Sanders’ creative approach
Sanders, like Dyson, combines engineering and industrial design skills, but has a
different approach to creative design. Key points of this approach include:
• ‘Immersing yourself in the problem’ at each stage in order to see if ideas from
other areas or from nature (biological analogies) might offer a solution.
• Gathering information from any likely source, including both specialist
publications on the problem in question and general design or engineering
reference books for ideas and information on related products, mechanisms, etc.
• Sketching ‘as a dialogue with yourself’ or ‘visual brainstorming’ to get as
many ideas as possible down on paper in order to ‘clarify vague ideas in the
head’ and to move forward. The standard of drawing can be quite rough as the
sketches are for personal use.
4
COMPARISONS
11
From these case studies of innovative product development it is possible to
identify many similarities in and differences between: the product development
process; the sources of creative ideas; the personal qualities of the individuals
who produced the innovations; and the way in which the products were
introduced to the market.
The product development process
The product development process followed a broadly similar pattern in the three
cases, but with differences in the details depending on the nature of the
innovation and the approach of the individual concerned.
Two projects arose from the personal need of the designer (Ballbarrow, Strida)
and one from the chance occurrence of an inventive idea (Cyclone).
In all three cases the inventor/designers considered that their idea had
commercial potential. However, in none of the cases was any formal market
research conducted to assess the potential demand or to identify the
requirements of potential customers. Indeed Dyson argues that conventional
market research, ‘meaning asking people what they want is absolutely no use at
all…it cannot predict how successful a radically new product is going to be.’ He
contrasts conventional market research with his approach of creatively
researching the market: ‘seeing what other people are doing and why, getting
market figures, analysing costings, shopping…travelling, study, by observing
what is there and what isn’t, new ideas are born’. 1
In only one case (Strida) was a written specification for the proposed product
drawn up. This is despite all the evidence about the importance of drawing up
detailed market and technical specifications at the beginning of any product
development project 5. The lack of formal specifications is probably due to the
fact that these were projects conducted by individuals working alone or in small
organisations who may not have felt the need to write down a specification for
communication to other people.
In all cases there was a ‘primary generator’ 6, or essential generating idea, behind
the invention or new design – a ball-shaped wheel, the cylone principle, a
‘wheels on a stick’ folded form. This arose at the beginning, or at an early stage,
12
in the project and provided the guiding concept for all the design and
development work that followed.
Conceptual design involved testing the technical feasibility of this basic idea,
using a mockup (Cyclone) and/or developing a configuration that could
practically embody the concept, by sketching, or physical modelling (Ballbarrow, Strida).
As the projects moved from concept to development the processes diverged due
to the different nature of the problems to be solved. Extensive empirical
experimentation to verify and optimise the performance of an inventive technical
idea was required in the case of the Cyclone before a working prototype could
be constructed. Producing this prototype involved creating an overall design
configuration to embody the technology plus detail design of components. In the
other cases (Ball-barrow, Strida), no new technical principle was involved and so
detail design of the components of a production prototype through sketching,
engineering analysis, physical models and mockups could proceed once the
overall design configuration had been established.
In one case (Ballbarrow) the design was relatively simple and could be
established in sufficient detail at the prototype stage for materials to be specified,
tools to be ordered and manufacture to commence. However, the Cyclone and
Strida were more complex products and considerable further design and
development work was required to covert the prototype to a product suitable for
manufacture and sale.
Sources of creative ideas
As these cases clearly show, creative ideas are needed not only to provide the
basic concept for an innovative product but also to solve the many development
and detail design problems involved in converting the basic concept into a
commercial innovation. These creative ideas can come from many sources. The
basic concept for both of Dyson’s innovations arose from a mental transfer of
technology from one application to another. Sanders, on the other hand, tended
to seek analogies between the problem he was trying to solve and products or
components with similar functions.
13
Although Sanders occasionally uses ‘brainstorming with other people he knows
well’ when stuck for ideas, in general such inventor/designers rarely employ
formal creativity techniques. This may be because of their inate ability to
generate new ideas, but Eugene Ferguson 7 has suggested a more important
reason:
‘More important to a designer than a set of techniques
(empty of content) to induce creativity are a knowledge of
current practice and products and a growing stock of first
hand knowledge and insights gained through critical field
observation of engineering projects and industrial plants.’
It is not surprising therefore that in searching for ideas both individuals draw
upon their prior knowledge and accumulated experience. However, both also
recognise that it is almost always necessary to obtain further information from
any accessible source. Where they may differ is in the timing and in their
preferred method of thinking. For Dyson it is often better to be relatively
uninformed at the early concept stage so as not to be hampered by prior
solutions, but at the development stage to become a ‘leading expert’ in the
particular area of the invention, whereas Sanders ‘immerses himself in the
problem’ and existing solutions from the start. Dyson moves forward by
working with physical models, mockups and prototypes and relatively little
drawing, whereas Sanders uses sketching as his main means of problem
exploration. What is clear from these cases is that innovative design is never an
easy matter; it requires knowledge and expertise plus sustained and dedicated
effort over a long period.
Personal qualities of innovators
It follows from the above that a high level of commitment to completing a given
project, against all the obstacles that are bound to occur, is one very important
quality of innovators. Both Dyson and Sanders combine skills in the technical
aspects of design with the visual and human aspects, enabling them to develop
products which appeal to customers as well as operating efficiently. Their
concern for the commercial potential of an invention or new design, including
the manufacturing constraints, is a safeguard against proceeding with ideas that
have no hope of reaching the market. However, it is relatively rare to find such a
14
combination of technical, visual and commercial skills in one individual and so
in most cases more of a team effort is required to innovate.
Commercial innovation
Before reaching the market all three innovative products met with strong
resistance from established UK manufacturers or retailers – they said the
Ballbarrow would not sell; felt the Cylone was too risky or radical; and
expressed no interest in the Strida. Dyson had initially to set up a business to
make the Ballbarrow himself and for the Cyclone was forced to find overseas
manufacturers willing to license the invention. Sanders was fortunate to be
approached by a British entrepreneur willing to invest in his bicycle. However,
when that business failed he decided to assign the patents to the British
Technology Group with manufacture in the Far East the most likely outcome.
To date probably the most commercially successful of the innovations is the
Ballbarrow, which has been in production in various versions for many years.
The other innovations have both been more successful in overseas markets than
in the UK, especially in Japan where consumers appear more willing to adopt
novel products.
Comparison with other innovations
How typical are these cases of innovative products created by individual
inventor/designers? The author has studied several similar cases 8, including
the small-wheel bicycles designed by Alex Moulton 9 and the Workmate®
workbench invented by Ron Hickman 10.
In these other examples too it is possible to observe:
• a ‘primary generator’ for the basic concept underlying the innovation
(Moulton’s belief in the advantages of small wheels for bicycles; Hickman’s idea
of making the work surfaces of a workbench function as a vice);
• the development of the design through physical models and prototypes;
• high levels of creativity in designing key components (e.g the suspension
system of the Moulton bicycle, the vice mechanism of the Workmate);
• the initial resistance of existing manufacturers to the innovative product;
15
• commercialisation first achieved by means of the inventor/designer setting up
a business to make the product.
5
CONCLUSIONS
Although it would be unwise to draw firm general conclusions based on these
relatively few cases (mainly of mechanical innovations created by individual
inventor/designers), a general pattern may nevertheless be observed.
Innovative products typically arise from personal need or direct experience of
the individual inventor/designer, often as a result of using existing products
and finding them unsatisfactory. A desire to improve upon existing artefacts is
an aspect of the ‘constructive discontent’ displayed by creative individuals. Such
individuals tend not to employ market research to identify customer needs in
advance of the product development process, typically due to the view that a
demand for radical new products cannot be properly assessed by conventional
market research.
Inventors and designers tend to adopt a ‘solution-focussed’ strategy 11 with an
initial idea or ‘primary generator’ created early on which guides the product
development process. This primary generator is often derived from the
accumulated technical or design ‘repertoire’ of the individual, comprising
knowledge of particular production processes or materials, admired or favourite
products, and so on. This repertoire of knowledge and experience is far more
useful than the numerous formal techniques that have been developed to foster
creativity.
Individual inventors and designers typically employ a mix of 2D sketching and
3D physical modelling to conceive and then develop their inventions and
designs. The mix will depend partly on the nature of the problem to be solved
and partly upon the preferred working method of the individual. Whereas some
individuals may rely heavily on what Eugene Ferguson 7 has called ‘thinking
sketches’ to clarify and develop the visual ideas held in the mind’s eye, others
rely much more on observing and working with physical models. Mathematical
analysis and CAD systems tend to be employed to mainly to check and refine
ideas and decisions. Indeed, there is a general tendency among such creative
16
individuals to move quickly from ideas, calculations, sketches and drawings to
physical models and prototypes. The eminent engineering designer, Alex
Moulton, has commented;
‘Ideas and calculations must be translated into drawings
and sketches […] drawings must be made into hardware as
soon as possible, so that reality can be tested and analysed.
This is the most important part of the development
cycle.’ 12
Translating an innovative idea into a product ready for manufacture, is a
difficult process involving long periods of dedicated work, the solution of many
sub-problems in component design, and often several setbacks. Creativity is
required throughout product development, not just at the early concept stage.
Although specialist knowledge may not be required to conceive the basic idea
behind an innovation, domain-specific knowledge and technical and design
expertise are almost always required to go beyond the idea to develop a
workable product. Moulton has observed;
‘What differentiates the designer, who successfully
innovates, from the crackpot inventor is the depth of study.
Certainly I have made […] dozens of “inventions” leading to
patents; but they all arise from a revelation emanating from
observing and studying in a particular field; never from a
random idea occurring in a random field.’ 13
Attempts by an individual inventor/designer to interest established UK
manufacturers in producing a highly innovative product seem likely to be
unsuccessful; probably due to the ‘not invented here’ sydrome, the
unwillingness of such manufacturers to take risks, or other organisational
factors. Successful innovators therefore require the entrepreneurial skills to find
alternative sources of support and investment – often from overseas – and/or to
establish a business to manufacture the product themselves. Established UK
manufacturers may subsequently wish to adopt the innovation, but usually only
after it has proved to be a commercial success in the market. These cases
therefore seem to lend weight to the argument that creative British inventors and
designers are more likely to have their ideas commercialised by overseas
17
manufacturers. Attitudes to innovation and risk need to change if UK (and
European) industry is to benefit from the undoubted creative talent of British
inventors and designers.
18
REFERENCES
1 Dyson, J. Transcript of talk to The Bath Design Conference 1987 ‘Designer as
Entrepeneur’, 2-3 November, Bath, UK, (1987)
2 Thring, M.W. and Laithwaite, E.R. How to invent, Macmillan, London, UK
(1977)
3 Ochse, R. Before the gates of excellence: the determinants of creative genius,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (1990)
4 Sanders, M.A. ‘The design of a new folding bicycle’, Unpublished Masters Thesis,
Imperial College/Royal College of Art, London, UK (June 1985)
5 Walsh, V., Roy, R., Bruce, M. and Potter, S. Winning by design: technology,
product design and international competitiveness, Blackwell, Oxford, UK (1992)
6 Darke, J. ‘The primary generator and the design process’, Design Studies, Vol.1
No.1, (1979) pp.36-44.
7 Ferguson, E.S. Engineering and the mind’s eye, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.,
USA (1992)
8 Roy, R. Creativity and conceptual design: the invention and evolution of
bicycles (Block 3 of OU course T264 Design: Principles and Practice), The Open
University Press, Milton Keynes, UK (1992)
9 Moulton, A.E. ‘Innovation’, Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, (December 1979),
pp.31-44.
10 Hickman, R.P. and Roos, M.J. ‘Workmate’, CIPA Journal (Chartered Institute
of Patent Agents), (July 1982), pp.424-457.
11 Lawson, B. How designers think, Architectural Press, London, UK (1980)
12 Whitfield, P.R. Creativity in industry, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, UK
(1975)
13 Moulton, A.E. ‘Design and technological innovation’, Paper given to the
Design Congress ‘Profit by Design’, (1966)
19
FIGURE CAPTIONS
Figure 1 James Dyson with the Ballbarrow. (Photo: Mike Levers, Open
University)
Figure 2 Details of the bearing to the ball-shaped wheel from the Ballbarrow
patent. (Source: British Patent No 151011, 1975)
Figure 3 How the Cyclone vacuum cleaner works. A clean fan sucks in air
through the head – or through the hose nozzle – (small arrows). Dirty air (black)
enters the first stage cyclone at the top of the cylinder and swirls downward at
increasing speed throwing dirt to the side, from where it falls to the bottom.
Stripped of large dirt particles and most dust, less dirty air (grey) enters the
second stage cyclone where fine dust is thrown to the sides and also falls to the
bottom. Clean air (white) is expelled through the fan. (Source: Illustration by
David Penny in Design magazine No 416 August 1983 p50 and Engineering
Design Education, Spring 1985 p47)
Figure 4 The Cyclone or ‘G-force’ vacuum cleaner (left) with concentric cyclones
made in Japan by Alco International; Dyson’s first prototype (centre) in which
the cyclones were placed side-by-side and some of the several thousand models
(right) used to develop the best shape of cyclone. (Photo: Robin Roy)
Figure 5 Dyson Dual Cylone cleaner launched on the UK market in 1993. As
with previous models the machine is brightly coloured and the user is able to see
the dust and dirt particles swirling in the cylone chamber. (Photo: Dyson
Appliances Ltd)
Figure 6 Page from Mark Sanders’ first Bicycle Project Book showing the basic
concept of a bike which folds into a stick with wheels at one end.
(Source: Mark Sanders. Photo: Robin Roy)
Figure 7 Page from one of Sanders’ sketchbooks showing some initial design
concepts. (Source: Mark Sanders, Photo: Robin Roy)
Figure 8 Wire frame models used to present and check the choice of X-shaped
and triangular frame configurations.
(Source: Mark Sanders, Photo: Robin Roy)
20
Figure 9 Page from one of Sanders’ sketchbooks showing an exploration of ideas
based on a car seat belt mechanism for the bicycle bottom joint.
(Source: Mark Sanders, Photo Robin Roy)
Figure 10 Patent drawings of Sanders’ folding bicycle. (Source: Patent GB
2171656, 1986)
Figure 11 Production version of the Strida folding bicycle. (Photo: Mike Levers,
Open University)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank James Dyson and Mark Sanders for their
cooperation and assistance in making possible the development of the case
studies discussed in this article. Thanks are also due to Ian Spratley of the
OU/BBC Production Centre, Milton Keynes for his contributions in producing
the video programmes which provided the stimulus for writing this article
BIOGRAPHY
Dr Robin Roy
Robin Roy is a Senior Lecturer in Design in the Faculty of Technology at the
Open University with a background in mechanical engineering, design and
planning. Since joining the Open University in 1971 he has chaired and
contributed to many distance teaching courses, including Design: Principles and
Practice, Design and Innovation and Managing Design. In 1979 he founded the
Design Innovation Group to act as a focus for research on the management of
product design and technological innovation. He has held several major research
grants and published many books and papers in this field. Apart from the
research on creativity reported in this article, he has several other research
interests including environmentally-friendly product design and the design
evolution of bicycles and railways. He has been a visiting fellow at the Royal
Melbourne Institute of Technology, the University of Technology, Sydney and
Sydney University.
CreativityDesStud2/29/03/2011
An Introduction to Design Thinking
PROCESS GUIDE
EMPATHIZE
“To create meaningful innovations,
you need to know your users
and care about their lives.”
WHAT is the Empathize mode
Empathy is the centerpiece of a human-centered design process. The Empathize mode is
the work you do to understand people, within the context of your design challenge. It is your
effort to understand the way they do things and why, their physical and emotional needs, how
they think about world, and what is meaningful to them.
WHY empathize
As a design thinker, the problems you are trying to solve are rarely your own—they are those of
a particular group of people; in order to design for them, you must gain empathy for who they
are and what is important to them.
Observing what people do and how they interact with their environment gives you clues about
what they think and feel. It also helps you learn about what they need. By watching people,
you can capture physical manifestations of their experiences – what they do and say. This will
allow you to infer the intangible meaning of those experiences in order to uncover insights.
These insights give you direction to create innovative solutions. The best solutions come out
of the best insights into human behavior. But learning to recognize those insights is harder
than you might think. Why? Because our minds automatically filter out a lot of information
without our even realizing it. We need to learn to see things “with a fresh set of eyes,” and
empathizing is what gives us those new eyes.
Engaging with people directly reveals a tremendous amount about the way they think and
the values they hold. Sometimes these thoughts and values are not obvious to the people
who hold them, and a good conversation can surprise both the designer and the subject by
the unanticipated insights that are revealed. The stories that people tell and the things that
people say they do—even if they are different from what they actually do—are strong indicators
of their deeply held beliefs about the way the world is. Good designs are built on a solid
understanding of these beliefs and values.
DPØ STEPS: 1 Interview :: 2 Dig Deeper
HOW to empathize
To empathize, you:
In empathy work, connect with people and seek stories
– Observe. View users and their behavior in the context of their lives. As much as possible
do observations in relevant contexts in addition to interviews. Some of the most powerful
realizations come from noticing a disconnect between what someone says and what he does.
Others come from a work-around someone has created which may be very surprising to you as
the designer, but she may not even think to mention in conversation.
– Engage. Sometimes we call this technique ‘interviewing’ but it should really feel more like
a conversation. Prepare some questions you’d like to ask, but expect to let the conversation
deviate from them. Keep the conversation only loosely bounded. Elicit stories from the
people you talk to, and always ask “Why?” to uncover deeper meaning. Engagement can come
through both short ‘intercept’ encounters and longer scheduled conversations.
– Watch and Listen. Certainly you can, and should, combine observation and engagement.
Ask someone to show you how they complete a task. Have them physically go through the
steps, and talk you through why they are doing what they do. Ask them to vocalize what’s
going through their mind as they perform a task or interact with an object. Have a conversation
in the context of someone’s home or workplace – so many stories are embodied in artifacts.
Use the environment to prompt deeper questions.
Transition: Empathize >>> Define
EMPATHIZE
DEFINE
Unpack: When you move from empathy work to drawing conclusions
from that work, you need to process all the things you heard and saw
in order to understand the big picture and grasp the takeaways of it all.
Unpacking is a chance to start that process – sharing what you found
with fellow designers and capturing the important parts in a visual
form. Get all the information out of your head and onto a wall where
you can start to make connections—post pictures of your user, post-its
with quotes, maps of journeys or experiences—anything that captures
impressions and information about your user. This is the beginning of
the synthesis process, which leads into a ‘Define’ mode.
“Framing the right problem is the only
way to create the right solution.”
DEFINE
WHAT is the Define mode
The Define mode of the design process is all about bringing clarity and focus to the design
space. It is your chance, and responsibility, as a design thinker to define the challenge you
are taking on, based on what you have learned about your user and about the context. After
becoming an instant-expert on the subject and gaining invaluable empathy for the person you
are designing for, this stage is about making sense of the widespread information you have
gathered.
The goal of the Define mode is to craft a meaningful and actionable problem statement – this
is what we call a point-of-view. This should be a guiding statement that focuses on insights and
needs of a particular user, or composite character. Insights don’t often just jump in your lap;
rather they emerge from a process of synthesizing information to discover connections and
patterns. In a word, the Define mode is sensemaking.
WHY define
The Define mode is critical to the design process because it results in your point-of-view
(POV): the explicit expression of the problem you are striving to address. More importantly,
your POV defines the RIGHT challenge to address, based on your new understanding of
people and the problem space. It may seem counterintuitive but crafting a more narrowly
focused problem statement tends to yield both greater quantity and higher quality solutions
when you are generating ideas.
The Define mode is also an endeavor to synthesize your scattered findings into powerful
insights. It is this synthesis of your empathy work that gives you the advantage that no one
else has: discoveries that you can leverage to tackle the design challenge; that is, INSIGHT.
DPØ STEPS:
3 Capture Findings :: 4 Define Problem Statement
HOW to define
Articulate the meaningful challenge
Consider what stood out to you when talking and observing people. What patterns emerge
when you look at the set? If you noticed something interesting ask yourself (and your team)
why that might be. In asking why someone had a certain behavior or feeling you are making
connections from that person to the larger context. Develop an understanding of the type
of person you are designing for – your USER. Synthesize and select a limited set of NEEDS
that you think are important to fulfill; you may in fact express a just one single salient need
to address. Work to express INSIGHTS you developed through the synthesis of information
your have gathered through empathy and research work. Then articulate a point-of-view by
combining these three elements – user, need, and insight – as an actionable problem statement
that will drive the rest of your design work.
A good point-of-view is one that:
– Provides focus and frames the problem
– Inspires your team
– Informs criteria for evaluating competing ideas
– Empowers your team to make decisions independently in parallel
– Captures the hearts and minds of people you meet
– Saves you from the impossible task of developing concepts that are all things to all people
(i.e. your problem statement should be discrete, not broad.)
Transition: Define >>> Ideate
DEFINE
IDEATE
In the Define mode you determine the specific meaningful challenge to take
on, and in the Ideate mode you focus on generating solutions to address that
challenge. A well-scoped and -articulated point-of-view will lead you into ideation
in a very natural way. In fact, it is a great litmus test of your point-of-view to see if
brainstorming topics fall out your POV.
A great transition step to take is to create a list of “How-Might-We . . .?”
brainstorming topics that flow from your problem statement. These brainstorming
topics typically are subsets of the entire problem, focusing on different aspects of
the challenge. Then when you move into ideation you can select different topics,
and try out a few to find the sweet spot of where the group can really churn out a
large quantity of compelling ideas.
IDEATE
“It’s not about coming up with the
‘right’ idea, it’s about generating the
broadest range of possibilities.”
WHAT is the Ideate mode
Ideate is the mode of the design process in which you concentrate on idea generation.
Mentally it represents a process of “going wide” in terms of concepts and outcomes. Ideation
provides both the fuel and also the source material for building prototypes and getting
innovative solutions into the hands of your users.
WHY ideate
You ideate in order to transition from identifying problems to creating solutions for your users.
Ideation is your chance to combine the understanding you have of the problem space and
people you are designing for with your imagination to generate solution concepts. Particularly
early in a design project, ideation is about pushing for a widest possible range of ideas from
which you can select, not simply finding a single, best solution. The determination of the best
solution will be discovered later, through user testing and feedback.
Various forms of ideation are leveraged to:
– Step beyond obvious solutions and thus increase the innovation potential of your solution set
– Harness the collective perspectives and strengths of your teams
– Uncover unexpected areas of exploration
– Create fluency (volume) and flexibility (variety) in your innovation options
– Get obvious solutions out of your heads, and drive your team beyond them
DPØ STEPS: 5 Sketch :: 7 Generate a new solution
HOW to ideate
Maximize your innovation potential
You ideate by combining your conscious and unconscious mind, and rational thoughts with
imagination. For example, in a brainstorm you leverage the synergy of the group to reach new
ideas by building on others’ ideas. Adding constraints, surrounding yourself with inspiring
related materials, and embracing misunderstanding all allow you to reach further than you
could by simply thinking about a problem.
Another ideation technique is building – that is, prototyping itself can be an ideation technique.
In physically making something you come to points where decisions need to be made; this
encourages new ideas to come forward.
There are other ideation techniques such as bodystorming, mindmapping, and sketching. But
one theme throughout all of them is deferring judgment – that is, separating the generation
of ideas from the evaluation of ideas. In doing so, you give your imagination and creativity
a voice, while placating your rational side in knowing that your will get to the examination of
merits later.
Transition: Ideate >>> Prototype
IDEATE
PROTOTYPE
In order to avoid losing all of the innovation potential you have just generated
through ideation, we recommend a process of considered selection, by which you
bring multiple ideas forward into prototyping, thus maintaining your innovation
potential. As a team, designate three voting criteria (we might suggest “the most
likely to delight,” “the rational choice,” “the most unexpected” as potential criteria,
but they’re really up to you) to use to vote on three different ideas that your team
generated during brainstorming. Carry the two or three ideas that receive the most
votes forward into prototyping. In this way, you preserve innovation potential by
carrying multiple ideas forward—a radically different approach than settling on the
single idea that at least the majority of the team can agree upon.
“Build to think and test to learn.”
PROTOTYPE
WHAT is the Prototype mode
The Prototype mode is the iterative generation of artifacts intended to answer questions that
get you closer to your final solution. In the early stages of a project that question may be
broad – such as “do my users enjoy cooking in a competitive manner?” In these early stages,
you should create low-resolution prototypes that are quick and cheap to make (think minutes
and cents) but can elicit useful feedback from users and colleagues. In later stages both your
prototype and question may get a little more refined. For example, you may create a later
stage prototype for the cooking project that aims to find out: “do my users enjoy cooking with
voice commands or visual commands”.
A prototype can be anything that a user can interact with – be it a wall of post-it notes, a
gadget you put together, a role-playing activity, or even a storyboard. Ideally you bias toward
something a user can experience. Walking someone through a scenario with a storyboard is
good, but having them role-play through a physical environment that you have created will
likely bring out more emotions and responses from that person.
WHY prototype
To ideate and problem-solve. Build to think.
To communicate. If a picture is worth a thousand words, a prototype is worth a thousand
pictures.
To start a conversation. Your interactions with users are often richer when centered around a
conversation piece. A prototype is an opportunity to have another, directed conversation with
a user.
To fail quickly and cheaply. Committing as few resources as possible to each idea means less
time and money invested up front.
To test possibilities. Staying low-res allows you to pursue many different ideas without
committing to a direction too early on.
To manage the solution-building process. Identifying a variable also encourages you to break
a large problem down into smaller, testable chunks.
DPØ STEP: 8 Build
You can learn a lot from a very simple prototype
HOW to prototype
Start building. Even if you aren’t sure what you’re doing, the act of picking up some materials
(post-its, tape, and found objects are a good way to start!) will be enough to get you going.
Don’t spend too long on one prototype. Let go before you find yourself getting too
emotionally attached to any one prototype.
ID a variable. Identify what’s being tested with each prototype. A prototype should
answer a particular question when tested. That said, don’t be blind to the other tangential
understanding you can gain as someone responds to a prototype.
Build with the user in mind. What do you hope to test with the user? What sorts of behavior
do you expect? Answering these questions will help focus your prototyping and help you
receive meaningful feedback in the testing phase.
PROTOTYPE
TEST
Transition: Prototype >>> Test
Prototype and Test are modes that you consider in tandem more than you
transition between. What you are trying to test and how you are going to test that
aspect are critically important to consider before you create a prototype.
Examining these two modes in conjunction brings up the layers of testing a
prototype. Though prototyping and testing are sometimes entirely intertwined,
it is often the case that planning and executing a successful testing scenario is a
considerable additional step after creating a prototype. Don’t assume you can
simply put a prototype in front of a user to test it; often the most informative
results will be a product of careful thinking about how to test in a way that will let
users give you the most natural and honest feedback.
“Testing is an opportunity to learn
about your solution and your user.”
TEST
WHAT is the Test mode
The Test mode is when you solicit feedback, about the prototypes you have created, from
your users and have another opportunity to gain empathy for the people you are designing for.
Testing is another opportunity to understand your user, but unlike your initial empathy mode,
you have now likely done more framing of the problem and created prototypes to test. Both
these things tend to focus the interaction with users, but don’t reduce your “testing” work to
asking whether or not people like your solution. Instead, continue to ask “Why?”, and focus on
what you can learn about the person and the problem as well as your potential solutions.
Ideally you can test within a real context of the user’s life. For a physical object, ask people
to take it with them and use it within their normal routines. For an experience, try to create
a scenario in a location that would capture the real situation. If testing a prototype in situ
is not possible, frame a more realistic situation by having users take on a role or task when
approaching your prototype. A rule of thumb: always prototype as if you know you’re right, but
test as if you know you’re wrong—testing is the chance to refine your solutions and make them
better.
WHY test
To refine prototypes and solutions. Testing informs the next iterations of prototypes.
Sometimes this means going back to the drawing board.
To learn more about your user. Testing is another opportunity to build empathy through
observation and engagement—it often yields unexpected insights.
To refine your POV. Sometimes testing reveals that not only did you not get the solution right,
but also that you failed to frame the problem correctly.
DPØ STEPS: 6, 9 Share your solutions and get feedback
The key to user testing is listening.
HOW to test
Show don’t tell. Put your prototype in the user’s hands – or your user within an experience.
And don’t explain everything (yet). Let your tester interpret the prototype. Watch how they
use (and misuse!) what you have given them, and how they handle and interact with it; then
listen to what they say about it, and the questions they have.
Create Experiences. Create your prototypes and test them in a way that feels like an
experience that your user is reacting to, rather than an explanation that your user is evaluating.
Ask users to compare. Bringing multiple prototypes to the field to test gives users a basis for
comparison, and comparisons often reveal latent needs.
Iteration and making
the process your own
Iteration is a fundamental of good design. Iterate both by cycling through the
process multiple times, and also by iterating within a step—for example by creating
multiple prototypes or trying variations of a brainstorming topics with multiple
groups. Generally as you take multiple cycles through the design process your
scope narrows and you move from working on the broad concept to the nuanced
details, but the process still supports this development.
For simplicity, the process is articulated here as a linear progression, but
design challenges can be taken on by using the design modes in various orders;
furthermore there are an unlimited number of design frameworks with which to
work. The process presented here is one suggestion of a framework; ultimately
you will make the process your own and adapt it to your style and your work. Hone
your own process that works for you. Most importantly, as you continue to practice
innovation you take on a designerly mindset that permeates the way you work,
regardless of what process you use.
!
07:080:13…
Pages
Readings and Viewings: The Design and Innova!on Process
Immersive Reader
Spring 2022
Account
Home
Announcements
Dashboard
Courses
Modules
Readings and Viewings: The Design and Innova!on
Process
Discussions
Grades
Groups
Calendar
123
Inbox
History
Help
!
Rutgers Libraries
Student Instruc!onal
Ra!ng Survey
Zoom
Office 365
Top Hat
What is Design Thinking?
Everyone can–and does–design. We all design when we plan for something new to happen, whether that might be a new version of a
recipe, a new arrangement of the living room furniture, or a new layout of a personal web page. The evidence from different cultures
around the world, and from designs created by children as well as by adults, suggests that everyone is capable of designing. So design
thinking is something inherent within human cogni!on; it is a key part of what makes us human.
Although there is so much design ac!vity going on in the world, the ways in which people design were poorly understood for a long !me.
Design ability has been regarded as something that all people possess to some degree, but only a few people have a par!cularly strong
design “gi#.” Through research and study, there has been an increase in growth of our understanding of design ability. Today, the design
thinking model (see flowchart above) is an approach used in business, educa!on and of course, design.
Cross, Nigel. Design Thinking. Berg, 2011.
Readings and Viewings
I’d recommending star!ng this week by viewing the requirements for your Design Thinking reflec!on assignment. Then, read the
following two ar!cles and watch the video on Design Thinking from IBM. Consider how you, specifically, would approach the design
thinking process.
Roy’s ar!cle describes the design thinking process for two objects, the now famous Dyson vacuum and the folding bicycle. As you read
the ar!cle, consider what issues these two inven!ons solved.
Robin Roy’s ar!cle on Case Studies of Crea!vity in Innova!ve Product Development
James Dyson with vacuum cleaner prototypes. It took him five years and 5,127 design prototypes to invent the world’s first bagless vacuum cleaner.
The Strida folding bicycle folds into a “wheeled walking-s!ck” that can be pushed along, like a baby stroller/carriage whose folding concept provided the inspira!on for the design.
The following pdf file from Standford University’s d.school, a center for design thinking, describes the steps which are taken during the
design thinking and innova!on process. As you read, contemplate if you would omit any of the steps? Are all of them necessary to achieve
a func!onal and aesthe!cally pleasing design? Is the process logical?
An Introduc!on to the Design Thinking Process from Stanford University
This video from Harvard Business Review will introduce you to how design thinking is used in business. The video explains how human
centered design (design thinking) can help a business expand their product lines and services.
The Explainer: What Is Design Think…
“Previous
Next#

Purchase answer to see full
attachment