skip to main content

Title: Favoring Complexity: A Mixed Methods Exploration of Factors that Influence Concept Selection in Design for Additive Manufacturing
The capabilities of additive manufacturing (AM) open up designers’ solution space and enable them to build designs previously impossible through traditional manufacturing. To leverage AM, designers must not only generate creative ideas, but also propagate these ideas without discarding them in the early design stages. This emphasis on selecting creative ideas is particularly important in design for AM (DfAM), as ideas perceived as infeasible through the traditional design for manufacturing lens could now be feasible with AM. Several studies have discussed the role of DfAM in encouraging creative idea generation; however, there is a need to understand concept selection in DfAM. In this paper, we investigated the effect of two variations in DfAM education: 1) restrictive DfAM and 2) dual DfAM (opportunistic and restrictive) on students’ concept selection process. Specifically, we compared the creativity of the concepts generated by the students to the creativity of the concepts selected by them. Further, we performed qualitative analyses to explore the rationale provided by the students in making these design decisions. From the results, we see that teams from both educational groups select ideas of greater usefulness; however, only teams from the restrictive DfAM group select ideas of higher uniqueness and overall creativity. more » Further, we see that introducing students to opportunistic DfAM increases their emphasis on the complexity of designs when evaluating and selecting them. These results highlight the need for DfAM education to encourage AM designers to not just generate but also select creative ideas. « less
Authors:
; ; ; ;
Award ID(s):
1712234
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10173532
Journal Name:
ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
1-14
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Abstract The capabilities of additive manufacturing (AM) open up designers’ solution space and enable them to build designs previously impossible through traditional manufacturing (TM). To leverage this design freedom, designers must emphasize opportunistic design for AM (DfAM), i.e., design techniques that leverage AM capabilities. Additionally, designers must also emphasize restrictive DfAM, i.e., design considerations that account for AM limitations, to ensure that their designs can be successfully built. Therefore, designers must adopt a “dual” design mindset—emphasizing both, opportunistic and restrictive DfAM—when designing for AM. However, to leverage AM capabilities, designers must not only generate creative ideas for AM but also select these creative ideas during the concept selection stage. Design educators must specifically emphasize selecting creative ideas in DfAM, as ideas perceived as infeasible through the traditional design for manufacturing lens may now be feasible with AM. This emphasis could prevent creative but feasible ideas from being discarded due to their perceived infeasibility. While several studies have discussed the role of DfAM in encouraging creative idea generation, there is a need to investigate concept selection in DfAM. In this paper, we investigated the effects of four variations in DfAM education: (1) restrictive, (2) opportunistic, (3) restrictive followed by opportunistic (R-O),more »and (4) opportunistic followed by restrictive (O-R), on students’ concept selection process. We compared the creativity of the concepts generated by students to the creativity of the concepts they selected. The creativity of designs was measured on four dimensions: (1) uniqueness, (2) usefulness, (3) technical goodness, and (4) overall creativity. We also performed qualitative analyses to gain insight into the rationale provided by students when making their design decisions. From the results, we see that only teams from the restrictive and dual O-R groups selected ideas of higher uniqueness and overall creativity. In contrast, teams from the dual R-O DfAM group selected ideas of lower uniqueness compared with the mean uniqueness of ideas generated. Finally, we see that students trained in opportunistic DfAM emphasized minimizing build material the most, whereas those trained only in restrictive DfAM emphasized minimizing build time. These results highlight the need for DfAM education to encourage AM designers to not just generate creative ideas but also have the courage to select them for the next stage of design.« less
  2. Additive manufacturing (AM) processes present designers with creative freedoms beyond the capabilities of traditional manufacturing processes. However, to successfully leverage AM, designers must balance their creativity against the limitations inherent in these processes to ensure the feasibility of their designs. This feasible adoption of AM can be achieved if designers learn about and apply opportunistic and restrictive design for AM (DfAM) techniques at appropriate stages of the design process. Researchers have demonstrated the effect of the order of presentation of information on the learning and retrieval of said information; however, there is a need to explore this effect within DfAM education. In this paper, we explore this gap through an experimental study involving 195 undergraduate engineering students. Specifically, we compare two variations in DfAM education: (1) opportunistic DfAM followed by restrictive DfAM, and (2) restrictive DfAM followed by opportunistic DfAM, against only opportunistic DFAM and only restrictive DfAM training. These variations are compared through (1) differences in participants’ DfAM self-efficacy, (2) their self-reported DfAM use, and (3) the creativity of their design outcomes. From the results, we see that only students trained in opportunistic DfAM, with or without restrictive DfAM, present a significant increase in their opportunistic DfAM self-efficacy. However,more »all students trained in DfAM – opportunistic, restrictive, or both – demonstrated an increase in their restrictive DfAM self-efficacy. Further, we see that teaching restrictive DfAM first followed by opportunistic DfAM results in the generation of ideas with greater creativity – a novel research finding. These results highlight the need for educators to accountfor the effects of the order of presenting content to students, especially when educating students about DfAM.« less
  3. Design for manufacturing provides engineers with a structure for accommodating the limitations of traditional manufacturing processes. However, little emphasis is typically given to the capabilities of processes that enable novel design geometries, which are often a point of focus when designing products to be made with additive manufacturing (AM) technologies. In addition, limited research has been conducted to understand how knowledge of both the capabilities (i.e., opportunistic) and limitations (i.e., restrictive aspects) of AM affects design outcomes. This study aims to address this gap by investigating the effect of no, restrictive, and both, opportunistic and restrictive (dual) design for additive manufacturing (DfAM) education on engineering students’ creative process. Based on the componential model of creativity [1], these effects were measured through changes in (1) motivation and interest in AM, (2) DfAM self-efficacy, and (3) the emphasis given to DfAM in the design process. These metrics were chosen as they represent the cognitive components of ‘task-motivation’ and ‘domain relevant skills’, which in turn influence the learning and usage of domain knowledge in creative production. The results of the study show that while the short (45 minute) DfAM intervention did not significantly change student motivation and interest towards AM, students showed highmore »levels of motivation and interest towards AM, before the intervention. Teaching students different aspects of DfAM also resulted in an increase in their self-efficacy in the respective topics. However, despite showing a greater increase in self-efficacy in their respective areas of training, the students did not show differences in the emphasis they gave to these DfAM concepts, in the design process. Further, students from all three education groups showed higher use of restrictive concepts, in comparison to opportunistic DfAM.« less
  4. The integration of additive manufacturing (AM) processes in many industries has led to the need for AM education and training, particularly on design for AM (DfAM). To meet this growing need, several academic institutions have implemented educational interventions, especially project- and problem-based, for AM education; however, limited research has explored how the choice of the problem statement influences the design outcomes of a task-based AM/DfAM intervention. This research explores this gap in the literature through an experimental study with 222 undergraduate engineering students. Specifically, the study compared the effects of restrictive and dual (restrictive and opportunistic) DfAM education, when introduced through either a simple or complex design task. The effects of the intervention were measured through (1) changes in student DfAM self-efficacy, (2) student self-reported emphasis on DfAM, and (3) the creativity of student AM designs. The results show that the complexity of the design task has a significant effect on the participants’ self-efficacy with, and self-reported emphasis on, certain DfAM concepts. The results also show that the complex design task results in participants generating ideas with greater median uniqueness compared to the simple design task. These findings highlight the importance of the chosen problem statement on the outcomes ofmore »a DfAM educational intervention, and future work is also discussed.« less
  5. Abstract

    Additive manufacturing (AM) processes present designers with unique capabilities while imposing several process limitations. Designers must leverage the capabilities of AM — through opportunistic design for AM (DfAM) — and accommodate AM limitations — through restrictive DfAM — to successfully employ AM in engineering design. These opportunistic and restrictive DfAM techniques starkly contrast the traditional, limitation-based design for manufacturing techniques — the current standard for design for manufacturing (DfM). Therefore, designers must transition from a restrictive DfM mindset towards a ‘dual’ design mindset — using opportunistic and restrictive DfAM concepts. Designers’ prior experience, especially with a partial set of DfM and DfAM techniques could inhibit their ability to transition towards a dual DfAM approach. On the other hand, experienced designers’ auxiliary skills (e.g., with computer-aided design) could help them successfully use DfAM in their solutions. Researchers have investigated the influence of prior experience on designers’ use of DfAM tools in design; however, a majority of this work focuses on early-stage ideation. Little research has studied the influence of prior experience on designers’ DfAM use in the later design stages, especially in formal DfAM educational interventions, and we aim to explore this research gap. From our results, we see thatmore »experienced designers report higher baseline self-efficacy with restrictive DfAM but not with opportunistic DfAM. We also see that experienced designers demonstrate a greater use of certain DfAM concepts (e.g., part and assembly complexity) in their designs. These findings suggest that introducing designers to opportunistic DfAM early could help develop a dual design mindset; however, having more engineering experience might be necessary for them to implement this knowledge into their designs.

    « less