Journal of Korean Society for Quality Management (품질경영학회지)

Korean Society for Quality Management (한국품질경영학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Creativity evaluation of design concepts using AHP

AHP를 활용한 디자인 콘셉트의 창의성 평가에 관한 연구

  • Seo, ChangWon (Department of Industrial Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University) ;
  • Park, Young T. (Department of Industrial Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University)
  • 서창원 (성균관대학교 일반대학원 산업공학과) ;
  • 박영택 (성균관대학교 일반대학원 산업공학과)
  • Received : 2016.10.25
  • Accepted : 2016.12.05
  • Published : 2016.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: Evaluation of the creativity level of design concepts. Methods: 14 winners of design concepts area of the 2015 Red dot Award are used to evaluate the creativity level of design concepts. Among the 14 winners, one is the highest award (; luminary) winner, 4 are the second highest award(; best of the best) winners, and the remaining 9 are winners. AHP model was developed to evaluate the creativity levels of design concepts, and applied to the 14 winners of the reddot award. Results: Originality and practicality have been used to evaluate creativity level of new product ideas in the previous study. In this study, it is identified that originality is composed of innovativeness and topicality, and practicality is composed of utility and realizability. The design concepts which won higher level awards have higher level of originality. Among the two dimensions of originality, topicality has more significant relationship than innovativeness. Conclusion: The design concepts with higher level of originality, especially higher level of topicality, have a fair chance to be recognized as creative. It is notable that higher level of originality does not guarantee higher profit. According to the previous studies on the commercial success of new products, practicality is more important than originality.

Keywords

References

  1. Altshuller, G. 1984. Creativity as an Exact Science. Gordon and Breach.
  2. Amabile, T. M. 1996. "Creativity and innovation in organizations." Harvard Business Review 5.
  3. Amabile, T. M., and Gryskiewicz, S. S. 1987. "Creativity in the R&D Laboratory." North Carolina: Center for Creativity Leadership.
  4. Boden, M. 1992. "The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms." NewYork: Basic Books.
  5. Clayton, M., and Scott, D. 2001. "What's the BIG Idea?" Harvard Business School Case 602-105.
  6. Cropley, A. J. 1999. "Creativity and cognition: producting effective novelty." Roeper Review 21:253-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199909553972
  7. Finke, R. A. 1990. "Creative Imagery: Discoveries and Inventions in Visualization." NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  8. Finke, R. A., and Slayton, K. 1998. "Explorations of Creative visual Synthesis in Mental Imagery." Memory & Cognition 16(3):252-257. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197758
  9. Goldenberg, J., Mazursky, D., and Solomon, S. 1999. "Toward identifying the inventive templates of new products: a channeled ideation approach." Journal of Marketing Research 36:200-210. https://doi.org/10.2307/3152093
  10. Goldenberg, J., Lehmann, R.D., and Mazursky, D. 2001. "The idea itself and the circumstances of its emergence as predictors of new product success." Management Science 47:69-84. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.47.1.69.10670
  11. Heo, K., Song, H. G., and Park, Y. T. 2015. "The Effect of SIT for the Development of Creative New Food: Products: Focusing on the New Products of 'H' company." Journal of the Korean Society for Quality Management 44(1):95-108. https://doi.org/10.7469/JKSQM.2016.44.1.095
  12. Horowitz, R. 2001. "From TRIZ to ASIT in 4 Steps." TRIZ journal, August.
  13. Jang, K. H. 2009. "A study on the Improvement of Buyer Utility Map in the Blue Ocean Strategy." Master thesis, Sungkyunkwan University.
  14. Jo, K. T. 2003. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Donghyun Publisher.
  15. Jo, K. T., Hong, S. O., and Kwon, C. S. 2003. Decision Making for Leaders. Donghyun Publisher.
  16. Kang, I. S., Song, H. G., and Park, Y. T. 2016. "Measuring Creativity of Ideas and the Corresponding Customer Satisfaction." Journal of the Korean Society for Quality Management 44(1):139-152. https://doi.org/10.7469/JKSQM.2016.44.1.139
  17. Kim, W. C., and Renee, M. 2005. Blue Ocean Strategy. Kyobobook Publishers.
  18. Kim, E. S. 2012. "A Comparative Study on the Effectiveness of the Creative Tools." Master thesis, Sungkyunkwan University.
  19. Kim, E. J. 2008. "Development of the Evaluation Tool for Creativity in Design." PhD. diss., Chonbuk National University.
  20. Lee, C. S. 2012. "An Intelligent Decision Support System for selecting Promising Technologies for R&D based on Time-series Patent Analysis." Biblographic Info: J Intell Inform Syst 18(3):79-96.
  21. Lubart, T. I. 1994. "Creativity Thinking and Problem Solving." New York: Academic Press.
  22. Na, Y. S. 2015. "The Effect of New Product Creativity on Market Performance" Master thesis, Sungkyunkwan University.
  23. Park, Y. T. 2015. "Quality Management and Creative Innovation." Journal of the Korean Society for Quality Management 43(1):1-10. https://doi.org/10.7469/JKSQM.2015.43.1.001
  24. Shin, J. H. 2013. "Analysis of Buyer Utility Map in Creative Products Design." Master thesis, Sungkyunkwan University.
  25. Stevens, G., and Burley, J. 1997. "3,000 Raw Ideas Equals 1 Commercial Sucess!" Research Technology Management 40:16-27.
  26. Thomas L. Saaty. 1977. "A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures." Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15:234-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5
  27. Thomas L. Saaty. 1990. "How to make a decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process." European Journal of Operational Research 48:9-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I
  28. Yu, S. B. 2014. "A Study on SIT 5 Thinking Tools and Utility Levers." Master thesis, Sungkyunkwan University.