Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T14:50:57.568Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Good idea! Or, good presentation? Examining the effect of presentation on perceived quality of concepts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2018

Jieun Kwon  and
Barry Kudrowitz
Jieun Kwon*
Affiliation:
College of Design, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
Barry Kudrowitz
Affiliation:
College of Design, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Jieun Kwon, E-mail: Kwonx315@umn.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the product design realm, designers often use presentations to convey certain ideas about a product or a specific stage of the design process. The popular forms of presentation include verbal pitching, two-dimensional drawing, and prototyping. The clients, investigators, and other audiences rely on such presentations to evaluate an idea. Popular idea evaluation assessment tools, such as the consensual assessment technique, utilize such interactions. On the other hand, numerous pieces of literature state that the audiences are heavily influenced by the quality of presentation when evaluating the worth of the product being presented. In this study, we examine if the audience is able to discriminate between the quality of the presentation and the quality of the idea being presented. A total of 613 ideas were evaluated over a 4-year period during a specific product design class at different phases in the design process. The result shows that no matter the kind of presentation tool used, the presentation quality ratings and the idea value ratings had a very strong positive correlation despite the explicit instructions to reviewers to separate presentation quality from concept quality. Our additional analysis shows that such a pattern did not change during the different phases of the design process.

Keywords

Concept developmentidea presentationpitchprototypevisual presentation
Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 32 , Special Issue 4: Design Creativity , November 2018 , pp. 380 - 389
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ainsworth, S, Prain, V and Tytler, R (2011) Drawing to learn in science. Science 333, 1096–1097.Google Scholar
Amabile, TM (1983) The Social Psychology of Creativity. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Amarel, S (1990) Artificial intelligence and design. In Proceedings of the Fifth Jerusalem Conference on Information Technology, 1990, Next Decade in Information Technology (Cat. No. 90TH0326-9). IEEE, pp. 315–333.Google Scholar
Albert, S and Dabbs, JM Jr. (1970) Physical distance and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 15, 265.Google Scholar
Alvarez, JA, Baldonedo, RF, Bear, IG, Solis, JAS, Alvarez, P and Jorge, JI (2004) Incarcerated groin hernias in adults: presentation and outcome. Hernia 8(2), 121–126.Google Scholar
Buchenau, M and Suri, JF (2000) Experience prototyping. Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques, pp. 424–433.Google Scholar
Burns, C, Dishman, E, Johnson, B and Verplank, B (1995) “Informance”: min(d)ing future contexts for scenario based interaction design. Presented at Bay CHI (Palo Alto, August 1995). Abstract Available at http://www.baychi.org/meetings/archive/0895.html.Google Scholar
Clabby, C (2017) Brains like to keep it real. Retrieved 03 May 2017. Available at http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/brains-like-to-keep-it-real.Google Scholar
Daignault, L (1997) Children's Creative Musical Thinking within the Context of a Computer-Supported Improvisational Approach to Composition. (Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 46.Google Scholar
Davitz, JR (ed.) (1964) The Communication of Emotional Meaning. Oxford, England: Mcgraw Hill.Google Scholar
Eissen, K and Steur, R (2007) Sketches: Drawing Techniques for Product Designers. Amsterdam: Bis Publisher.Google Scholar
Ekman, P, Friesen, WV and Ellsworth, P (1972) Emotion in the Human Face: Guidelines for Research and an Integration of Findings: Guidelines for Research and an Integration of Findings. Pergamon: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Elsbach, K (2003) How to pitch a brilliant idea. Harvard Business Review 81(9), 117–123. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10576318_How_to_Pitch_a_Brilliant_Idea.Google Scholar
Finke, RA (1996) Imagery, creativity, and emergent structure. Consciousness and Cognition 5, 381–393.Google Scholar
Georgiadis, G (2014) Projects and team dynamics. The Review of Economic Studies 82, 187–218.Google Scholar
Goel, V (1995) Sketches of Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, G (1991) The dialectics of sketching. Creativity Research Journal 4, 123–143.Google Scholar
Gould, JD and Lewis, C (1985) Designing for usability: key principles and what designers think. Communications of the ACM 28, 300–301.Google Scholar
Gupta, S, Kota, S and Mishra, RP (2016) Modeling and evaluation of product quality at conceptual design stage. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management 6, 1–15.Google Scholar
Hall, JA (1980) Voice tone and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38, 924.Google Scholar
Houde, S and Hill, C (1997) What do prototypes prototype? In Helander, M, Landauer, T and Prabhu, P (eds), Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd Edn. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V., pp. 367–381.Google Scholar
Kudrowitz, B, Te, P and Wallace, D (2012) The influence of sketch quality on perception of product-idea creativity. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 26, 267–279.Google Scholar
Kudrowitz, B and Wallace, D (2010) The play pyramid: a play classification and ideation tool for toy design. The Journal of Arts and Technology 3, 36–56.Google Scholar
Kudrowitz, B and Wallace, D (2012) Assessing the quality of ideas from prolific, early stage product ideation. Journal of Engineering Design: Special Issue on Design Creativity 24, 120–139.Google Scholar
Kyung, M (1995) Creating contexts for design. In Carroll, JM (ed.), Scenario-Based Design: Envisioning Work and Technology in System Development. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 383–406.Google Scholar
Leonard, D and Rayport, JF (1997) Spark innovation through empathic design. Harvard Business Review 75, 102–113.Google Scholar
Malamed, C (2015) Visual Design Solutions: Principles and Creative Inspiration for Learning Professionals. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Maldonado, H, Lee, B, Klemmer, SR and Pea, RD (2007) Patterns of collaboration in design courses: team dynamics affect technology appropriation, artifact creation, and course performance. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning. International Society of the Learning Sciences, pp. 490–499.Google Scholar
Mayer, RE and Anderson, RB (1991) Animations need narrations: an experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology 83, 484.Google Scholar
Mayer, RE and Anderson, RB (1992) The instructive animation: helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 84, 444.Google Scholar
McKoy, FL, Vargas-Hernández, N, Summers, JD and Shah, JJ (2001) Influence of design representation on effectiveness of idea generation. In ASME IDETC Design Theory and Methodology Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, September, pp. 9–12.Google Scholar
Muller, MJ (1991) PICTIVE – an exploration in participatory design. CHI ‘91 Conference Proceedings, p. 391.Google Scholar
Muller, MJ (1992) Retrospective on a year of participatory design using the PICTIVE technique. In Proceedings of CHI ‘92 (May 1992). ACM Press, pp. 455–462.Google Scholar
Priest, TL (1997) Fostering Creative and Critical Thinking in a Beginning Instrumental Music Class (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) University of Illinois at Urbana-Champ.Google Scholar
Ramsey, RD (1999) How to pitch a new idea. Supervision 60, 6–7.Google Scholar
Reynolds, G (2011) Presentation Zen: Simple Ideas on Presentation Design and Delivery. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.Google Scholar
Scherer, KR, Koivumaki, J and Rosenthal, R (1972) Minimal cues in the vocal communication of affect: judging emotions from content-masked speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 1, 269–285.Google Scholar
Schank, RC and Jona, MY (1991) Empowering the student: new perspectives on the design of teaching systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 1, 7–35.Google Scholar
Scott, TJ, Tichenor, LH, Bisland, RB Jr. and Cross, JH II (1994) Team dynamics in student programming projects. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 26, 111–115.Google Scholar
Shah, DV, McLeod, JM and Yoon, SH (2001) Communication, context, and community an exploration of print, broadcast, and internet influences. Communication Research 28, 464–506.Google Scholar
Sommerville, I (1995) Software Engineering. Wokingham, UK: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Suwa, M and Tversky, B (1997) What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Design Studies 18(4), 385–403.Google Scholar
Tovey, M, Porter, S and Newman, R (2003) Sketching, concept development and automotive design. Design Studies 24, 135–153.Google Scholar
Ullman, JB and Bentler, PM (2003) Structural Equation Modeling. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
Van der Veer, GC, Lenting, BF and Bergevoet, BAJ (1996) GTA: groupware task analysis – modeling complexity. Acta Psychologica 91, 297–332.Google Scholar
Venus, A and Riat, A (1997) Advances in rapid tooling in product introduction processes. In International Conference on Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing, pp. 760–768.Google Scholar
Wagner, A (1990) Prototyping: a day in the life of an interface designer. In Laurel, B (ed.) The Art of Human Computer Interface Design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, pp. 79–84.Google Scholar
Wong, YY (1992) Rough and ready prototypes: lessons from graphic design. In Proceedings of CHI ‘92 Posters and Short Talks (May 1992). ACM Press, pp. 83–84.Google Scholar
Yang, MC (2005) A study of prototypes, design activity, and design outcome. Design Studies 26, 649–669.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, M, Porac, J, Lathin, D and Deci, EL (1978) On the importance of self-determination for intrinsically-motivated behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 4, 443–446.Google Scholar