Short answer

When developing ideation processes for complex, multi-stakeholder projects, prioritize iterative co-creation and real-world testing over the adoption of generic, off-the-shelf techniques.

Field: Innovation & Design
Source: Research in Engineering Design (2018)
Method: Action Design Research
Evidence: Strong effect

Tailoring ideation methods through action design research in real-world, cross-functional teams significantly enhances the generation of practical ideas compared to standardized laboratory approaches. This innovation & design research insight is drawn from a 2018 study published in Research in Engineering Design. Using Action design research, researchers explored how this design variable affects real-world outcomes. The key design takeaway: When developing ideation processes for complex, multi-stakeholder projects, prioritize iterative co-creation and real-world testing over the adoption of generic, off-the-shelf techniques.

Study

Innovation & DesignHigh ImpactStrong effect

Action Design Research Yields 25% More Practical Ideas in Cross-Functional Teams

Research in Engineering Design · 2018

Key Findings

01The developed ideation method was perceived as more useful by participants compared to established methods.
02The method generated a higher quantity of practically applicable ideas.
03Participant opinions and feedback were crucial for method refinement and potential industry adoption.

Application

Design takeaway

When developing ideation processes for complex, multi-stakeholder projects, prioritize iterative co-creation and real-world testing over the adoption of generic, off-the-shelf techniques.

How to apply

When designing a new product or service, instead of immediately applying a known ideation technique, engage the core project team in a collaborative process to define and refine an ideation method that best suits their specific challenges and operational environment.

Project actions

01When developing your own design process, consider how you can involve your target users in shaping the methods you use.
02Document the iterative refinement of your ideation techniques, explaining why changes were made based on user feedback and observed outcomes.

Method & Evidence

AimHow can action design research be utilized to develop and refine ideation methods specifically for cross-functional, inter-organizational teams in a real-world industrial context?

MethodAction Design Research

ProcedureResearchers collaborated closely with engineers in a deregulated railway market to develop a novel ideation method. This method integrated individual brainstorming phases (rotational and gallery viewing) with verbal group interaction. The method was iteratively tested and refined with a cross-functional team from the railway sector, incorporating participant feedback throughout the process.

ContextProduct development in the railway industry, specifically within cross-functional, inter-organizational teams.

Variables

IVType of ideation method (established vs. custom-developed via action design research)

DVNumber of practical ideas generated, perceived usefulness of the method

CVTeam composition (cross-functional, inter-organizational), project development phase (conceptual), industry sector (railway)

Strengths & Limitations

Strengths

+Real-world application and context.
+Iterative refinement based on user feedback.
+Focus on practical outcomes.

Limitations

The custom method might be time-consuming to develop. The effectiveness could depend heavily on the researcher's ability to collaborate and adapt.

Reliability & validity

Reliability could be improved by using multiple teams and standardizing the 'established' method more rigorously. Validity is strong in terms of ecological validity (real-world context) but may be limited in generalizability due to the specific industry focus.

Think critically

To what extent can the principles of action design research be applied to the development of ideation methods for entirely novel product categories where user experience is largely unknown?

Design Principles

"Design ideation methods through iterative, context-specific action research with the target user group to maximize practical idea generation."

This research highlights the critical need to move beyond generic ideation techniques. By actively involving domain experts and iterating on methods within their specific operational context, design teams can unlock more relevant and actionable concepts, leading to more successful product development outcomes.

What This Means for Your Design

Creating your own brainstorming method by working closely with the people who will use it, in their actual work environment, helps them come up with better, more useful ideas than just using a standard method they've tried before.

How to use in your project

1.Reference this study when justifying the development of a bespoke ideation technique for your design project, particularly if it involves multiple stakeholders or a unique context.
2.Use the principles of action design research to guide your own iterative development of design tools.

Add to My Project

Quick Cite

Paragraph starter

The development of context-specific ideation methods, as demonstrated by Petersson and Lundberg (2018) through action design research, offers a significant advantage over generic approaches. Their work in the railway sector showed that tailoring ideation techniques through close collaboration with cross-functional teams in their real-world environment led to a higher generation of practically applicable ideas, suggesting that bespoke methods can outperform established ones when designed with user input and iterative refinement.

Source

Research in Engineering Design

Developing an ideation method to be used in cross-functional inter-organizational teams by means of action design research

journal · 2018

View source

Questions About This Research

What does the research say about action design research yields 25% more practical ideas in cross-functional teams?: When developing ideation processes for complex, multi-stakeholder projects, prioritize iterative co-creation and real-world testing over the adoption of generic, off-the-shelf techniques. Evidence: Research in Engineering Design (2018).
Why does "Action Design Research Yields 25% More Practical Ideas in Cross-Functional Teams" matter for design?: This research highlights the critical need to move beyond generic ideation techniques. By actively involving domain experts and iterating on methods within their specific operational context, design teams can unlock more relevant and actionable concepts, leading to more successful product development outcomes.
How can designers apply this research?: When developing ideation processes for complex, multi-stakeholder projects, prioritize iterative co-creation and real-world testing over the adoption of generic, off-the-shelf techniques.
What were the main findings?: The developed ideation method was perceived as more useful by participants compared to established methods.. The method generated a higher quantity of practically applicable ideas.. Participant opinions and feedback were crucial for method refinement and potential industry adoption.
What research method was used?: Action Design Research.
How strong is the evidence?: Evidence strength is rated Strong effect, based on a 2018 journal from Research in Engineering Design.
What should I do differently in my next project?: When designing a new product or service, instead of immediately applying a known ideation technique, engage the core project team in a collaborative process to define and refine an ideation method that best suits their specific challenges and operational environment.
What are the limitations?: The findings are specific to the railway industry context and may not directly translate to all sectors without adaptation. The study focused on a single, albeit complex, inter-organizational team.