A Novel Idea Generation Tool using a Structured Conversational AI (CAI) System

In pursuing innovation through the ideation phase of product design, several impediments can hinder designers’ creativity and idea generation. We identify such impediments and categorize them into four primary types, which we term as Ideation bottlenecks as summarized in Figure 1. These bottlenecks collectively identified from literature can stifle a designer in creative idea generation. The subsequent explanations of identified bottlenecks are defined by the authors to create a shared understanding within the scope of this study.

Lack of Experience is a bottleneck where designers may struggle to generate valuable ideas due to insufficient exposure to varied design challenges or a limited knowledge base. This inexperience can lead to a paucity of ideas or the generation of ideas that lack depth and practical applicability, ultimately impacting the quality and novelty of the design solutions proposed.

Design Fixation occurs when designers become anchored to their initial ideas. After conceiving a few preliminary concepts, there may be a reluctance or inability to diverge from these nascent solutions. This fixation not only restricts exploration but also inhibits the consideration of alternative and potentially superior ideas, thereby limiting the scope of the design and its potential for innovation.

Cognitive Fatigue is a state where the mental exertion of continuous ideation leads to a depletion of cognitive resources. This fatigue can manifest as a reduced ability to generate a breadth of diverse ideas. It can impede the designer’s ability to make connections between disparate ideas, resulting in a homogenization of ideas that fails to push the boundaries of the design solution space.

Mental Block represents a bottleneck where designers find themselves unable to conceive novel ideas. This blockage is often characterized by a blank state of mind, where no new ideas emerge, or a cyclic return to previously discarded ideas. Such a block can be due to various factors, including stress, pressure to innovate, or over-saturation with the problem at hand, leading to a paralysis of the creative process.

Each of these bottlenecks presents a significant challenge in the ideation phase, requiring strategies and interventions tailored to address and overcome them. Recognizing these bottlenecks is the first step toward mitigating their effects and fostering a more fluid and dynamic ideation process.

In the context of product design, the ideation phase is pivotal yet often encounters many cognitive and practical barriers (b31). Regarding creativity and ideation, various definitions exist, as discussed in the introduction. Still, for the present context, we define a creative idea as ”an assertive statement that describes ’what’ part of the solution and needs to be both novel and diverse”. Assessing the degree of novelty in an idea involves measuring how much it deviates from existing solutions and emphasizes the significance of originality, whereas the diversity of ideas refers to how far they are situated in the design space from one another. In this section, the authors identify certain characteristics prevalent among the traditional ideation techniques, characterized by a reliance on self-established thought patterns and conventional thought-provoking techniques. We introduce characteristics of a new ideation methodology that encourages dynamic engagement and the proactive pursuit of novel solutions using technology. Examining these characteristics offered a nuanced understanding of the ideation tools and helped formulate the proposed ideation method as a novel idea generation tool.

Novel ideas generated during ideation form the foundation for innovative and impactful products. However, many existing ideation techniques require the designers to work alone. This type of solo ideation is what we term Passive Ideation. Passive ideation is defined as one that enables only one-way communication, putting the burden on the designer’s mind to generate ideas, thereby limiting the potential of designers. The following are some of the limitations of passive ideation methods.

Lack of Engagement: Traditional ideation methods often lack the level of engagement necessary to inspire and ignite the creative process. While valuable, brainstorming or mind-mapping techniques can become monotonous. This passive approach may hinder designers from fully exploring unconventional or breakthrough ideas, restricting their creativity.

Limited Collaboration: Many traditional ideation methods are primarily based on personal thought discovery, restricting the power of collaboration. While individual thinking is essential, harnessing the collective intelligence of a diverse group can lead to more innovative concepts. Passive methods may not facilitate effective collaboration, resulting in missed opportunities for cross-pollination of ideas and fresh perspectives. Collaboration also requires discussion with experts and peers. Humans, with their diverse personalities, may hinder the generation of novel ideas as they can be biased towards their ideas.

Slow Iteration: Passive ideation methods often require significant time investment, slowing the iterative design process. Waiting for individual ideas to be shared, analysed, and consolidated can delay progress and hinder the exploration of alternative concepts. Designers need a more agile, active approach that allows for rapid idea generation, testing, and refinement.

Collaborative ideation is characterised by a natural, dynamic, unbiased alliance between a designer and the ideation method, facilitating creativity and critical thinking. This continuous conversation-driven approach serves as a solution to address the limitations of passive ideation methods. This type of Ideation is what we refer to as Active Ideation. By embracing active ideation, designers can overcome the constraints of passive ideation techniques, encouraging diverse perspectives and interactive engagement throughout the ideation process.

Enhanced Engagement: A higher level of engagement from the medium characterizes active ideation. Incorporating textual stimuli, dynamic prompts, and immersive experiences, designers are encouraged to think more creatively, break free from conventional thinking, and explore novel solutions to design challenges.

Dynamic Idea Exploration: An active ideation medium encourages designers to think beyond traditional boundaries and experiment with various ideas through multiple quick revisions. By providing the ability to have natural conversational dialogues with an omniscient, designers can explore different solutions and generate multiple design options that would not have been possible.

Data-driven Insights: Active ideation can collect and analyse conversational data during the ideation process, providing designers with valuable insights into the effectiveness and feasibility of different concepts. By leveraging real-time answers, designers can make informed decisions, prioritise ideas, and identify emerging patterns, leading to more diverse and detailed ideas.

Computer-aided ideation tools have existed for some time, offering a framework and environment where designers can explore, manipulate, and visualize ideas. These tools often incorporate databases of knowledge, templates for brainstorming, and mechanisms for capturing and categorizing ideas (b17). Some of these tools, such as iDea of Ekstrmer2019AFS, Digital Brainstorming of Maaravi2021-ic; bryant2005a; Siegle2020-lv, Idea-Inspire of b45, Bio-Inspire of b40, FuncSION of pal2014a, Co-storm of zhang2019acostorm, PANDA of roderman1993a, Web-enabled ideation of Beretta2018vo etc., have provided significant assistance in the ideation process, helping designers to organize thoughts, inspire creativity, and document the process. They augment the designer’s natural ideation capabilities by providing a digital space for exploration and documentation. However, the creative spark and the inception of novel ideas still originate from the human intellect, with the computer acting as a repository and mediator rather than a generator of ideas.

Let us imagine a situation where computers take a more active role in idea generation rather than being just a facilitator in the ideation process as in computer-aided ideation. The computer would generate ideas, suggest alternatives, and even challenge the designer’s assumptions, and the designer would play the role of a curator of what the computer proposed. That is, the designer’s expertise is utilized to evaluate the ideas and select the potential ones. This symbiotic relationship can be viewed as a Human-Computer Collaboration that capitalizes on the strengths of both computers and humans, combining raw computational power and intuitive judgment.

Recently, large language models (LLMs) from the Generative AI domain have gained prominence for their ability to generate diverse forms of original text (b19). It is known that conversation AI (CAI) systems can be tailored to align with human values, as they are designed to emulate intelligent human agents (b19). A salient feature of popular CAI systems is their focus on natural language interaction through chat-based dialogues, resembling human-to-human interactions (b19). In addition, digital big data has opened up novel avenues for such CAI by harnessing the potential of large datasets as knowledge bases. The authors feel that this ability of modern CAI systems to meaningfully respond to vague and grammatically inaccurate queries while exploiting the big-data resource makes them akin to the behaviour of human experts and can, therefore, be exploited for creative problem-solving.

Ideation in design can be conceptualized as a cognitive exploration that seeks to bridge the gap between the problem and solution spaces. Traditionally, this process relies on the designer’s ability to access and leverage their knowledge and experience. Only a fraction of the designer’s knowledge, which is a small subset of the world’s collective knowledge as shown in Figure 2, gets invoked at the crucial moment for idea generation. This inherent limitation can significantly constrain a designer’s capacity to generate novel, high-quality ideas within a given time. Moreover, the spontaneous invocation of pertinent knowledge is not within the designer’s volitional control, which can lead to cognitive stress and fatigue. This unpredictable nature of retrieval of a designer’s own knowledge underscores the challenges faced in conventional ideation techniques. Therefore, we believe that timely access and harvesting of principles from a large repository of knowledge is critical for the formulation of creative solutions for difficult practical problems.

Computer-generated ideation using CAI includes the application of LLMs, which can interact with designers through natural language processing (NLP). These LLM models can understand context, generate coherent ideas, assist in the iterative refinement of ideas, and provide a rationale for their suggestions. The LLMs, such as conversational AI, possess two critical attributes that make them invaluable to the ideation process. First, they have access to a vast repository of knowledge far exceeding the scope of any individual designer’s memory as shown in Figure  2. Second, given appropriate inputs (Prompts), they can rapidly generate coherent and contextually relevant sentences as outputs (Responses). The morphology of these sentences can resemble an idea. Thus, although LLMs lack intrinsic cognition and the ability to discriminate, their apparently intelligent responses can potentially be exploited fruitfully. This can be done by effectively invoking the relevant knowledge from their extensive database. By integrating such advanced computational technologies as active ideation partners, this CAI-based ideation promises a collaborative effort between human designers and machines. The designer’s responsibility shifts towards critically analysing and selecting the best ideas, harnessing the full potential of computational power for the generation of novel ideas.

The Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (GPT) is a state-of-the-art large language model (LLM) developed by OpenAI. As a natural language model, it has been trained to predict the next word in each piece of text, enabling it to generate coherent and contextually relevant sentences (b20). The GPT model by OpenAI has undergone a complex training regime that involves three core stages: unsupervised pre-training (USPT), supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). These stages collectively train GPT to produce human-like text while adhering to safety and ethical standards, balancing raw performance and controlled behaviour (b21). Due to its vast size and extensive training, the model can answer questions, write essays, summarise texts, and even translate languages - essentially any task that involves predicting the next word in a sentence (b22).

GPT models are pre-trained on vast text corpora, enabling them to generate coherent and contextually relevant text responses based on input prompts. We feel that if the input prompt solicits a solution to the problem, GPT would generate a text that could be a practical idea to solve the problem. This characteristic makes GPT a potential asset during the conceptual phase of product design. By engaging in a dialogue with GPT, designers can articulate their design challenges, ask questions, and receive prompt and personalised responses similar to brainstorming with multiple people, but instead with an expert omniscient. Furthermore, its capacity to process and synthesize information from various domains can help cross-pollinate ideas, thereby fostering innovation. The iterative interaction with a GPT can help novice designers overcome ideation bottlenecks by presenting a flow of ideas that can be refined and expanded upon, ensuring a dynamic and fluid creative process.

For instance, a GPT model might link a problem in ergonomic furniture design with insights from bio-mechanics and psychology, fields that may not typically be associated but can provide a deeper understanding of user interaction and comfort. By establishing such connections, designers are empowered to use knowledge more effectively, applying it in contextually appropriate ways to address the problem. The GPT’s role in this process is to act as a cognitive enhancer, expanding the designer’s ability to think laterally and draw upon a wider array of interdisciplinary insights, crucial for innovation and developing holistic design solutions.

The importance of making connections between knowledge in the design solution space cannot be overstated (Goncher2009). Design is inherently an integrative process, requiring the synthesis of various types of knowledge to create solutions that are not only innovative but also practical and feasible (b32). A GPT model can facilitate this synthesis by identifying patterns and relationships within the data they have learned that might not be immediately apparent to human designers. This ability to make unexpected connections can lead to breakthrough ideas and creative leaps in the design process. GPT models are adept at connecting disparate knowledge to specific problems, a key function during the ideation phase of product design. By drawing from a comprehensive database of information, GPT can bridge the gap between abstract concepts and concrete design challenges. When a designer inputs user needs or a design brief into a GPT-powered tool, the AI model can analyze the text, identify key themes and requirements, and then scan its vast repository of learned data to suggest relevant ideas, analogies, and concepts. This ability of GPT to understand and generate diverse linguistic structures allows it to serve as an ideation partner that can offer novel perspectives and solutions that might not be immediately obvious to human designers. The following are the three important benefits of using a CAI such as GPT for ideation:

An active ideation interface was designed and developed using a conversational AI system known as a Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT)¹¹1We used GPT-4 in our implementation. embedded over an interactive moodboard, as shown in Figure 3. GPT provides the backbone for natural language interaction, allowing it to respond and generate creative idea statements based on user input. The mood board provides a means for rapidly putting down those ideas. Thus, the interface provides the designers with a conversational and intuitive platform where GPT drives idea generation.

The comparative ideation study is conducted to assess the effectiveness of idea generation when comparing human designers with Conversational AI (CAI). The following sections provide an in-depth look at the study’s methodology.

The pilot study undertaken in this research was meticulously designed to validate Hypotheses H1, H2, and H3, each positing a different aspect of the effectiveness and utility of Conversational AI (CAI) in the ideation process. The results obtained from this study are critical in determining the extent to which CAI can complement and potentially enhance human designers’ creative capabilities. By systematically evaluating the responses generated by CAI against the benchmarks set by these hypotheses, the study aims to provide empirical evidence on the viability of integrating AI into the ideation phase of the design process. This section details the outcomes of the pilot study, presenting a comprehensive analysis of the findings and their implications.

Every idea can be associated with some cognitive resource (wisdom - experience, knowledge - expertise, information - learning, data - observation, etc., as prescribed by the DIKW pyramid from information science) of the designer( Saulais2023). Table 3 illustrates this association for some ideas from Table 2. This implicit connection between knowledge and idea demands that the designers can connect their cognitive resources to the problem at hand while proposing novel ideas. However, voluntary recalling of relevant knowledge is a complex yet unreliable cognitive process. On the other hand, a CAI system is inherently efficient in associating a query with the resources it has been trained with. Given its training using the vast knowledge base, GPT has quick access to in-depth knowledge than an individual designer in any particular domain of relevance. Thus, CAI-enabled ideas scored higher in novelty consideration.

Human designers often reach a saturation point where they cannot generate new ideas. This is referred to here as a mental block (one of the ideation bottlenecks). A broader knowledge base from multiple domains is important in helping the designers break free from these ideation bottlenecks (Mostert2007). GPT is trained in knowledge across many domains; its inherent stochastic nature ensures that different solutions are generated when queried repeatedly. A designer’s ability to acquire and access knowledge is limited to a select few areas of expertise. Therefore, GPT, unlike humans, does not exhibit saturation and generates more diverse ideas.

The linguistic analysis conducted on the ideas generated by designers and GPT, as shown in Figure 10, reveals that GPT, on average, has a higher count of linguistic elements such as words, nouns, verbs, and adjectives. These elements serve as technical descriptors within a language, indicating that CAI-generated ideas possess greater detail than those conceived by human designers. Also, Figure 5(b) showed an interesting outcome: the average number of votes for each idea statement was higher for CAI than for the designer across all problem statements. A few expert designers were personally interviewed to understand the rationale behind their choices. They acknowledged that the level of detail contained in a CAI-generated idea was richer, providing them with more insights about the ideas. This depth of detail can be seen as an advantage in providing a rich context for each solution, but there is also a potential risk of cognitive overload. Designers could potentially become overwhelmed by the surplus of information. This would detract the idea, distract the designers from their objective, and diverge them from the original problem.

From the above discussion, it is understood that CAI-aided ideation is more beneficial in the ideation process than traditional methods (RQ1 is Answered). It helps the designers break free from the ideation bottlenecks that hold them back from potential solutions (RQ2 is Answered). By integrating CAI into their workflow, designers shift their primary role from generating ideas to curating them. This pivot allows designers to leverage their expertise in elaborating and refining the CAI’s suggestions. This collaborative approach between machine creativity and human selectivity has shown the potential to enhance the efficiency of the ideation phase.

Defining and understanding a problem’s nature is important for producing novel solutions in product design (CHDorst2003). The use of Solution Neutral Problem Statement (SNPS) is a standard practice for this purpose. However, designers often find it difficult to state the problem in this format. Hence, we are proposing a structure that will be used by the CAI to systematically formulate the problem statement by pinpointing the challenges that make the problem difficult, given the user needs as input by the designer. Ideation involves propositions by which these challenges could be overcome. The proposed structure for a problem statement is encapsulated in the ”AI3C: Activity-Item-Contradiction-Constraint-Criteria” model (An Example of the problem statement structure is shown in Figure 11).

The proposed problem structure is based on the interaction of two critical elements:

1. 1.

   Element A (Activity): This represents the action or series of actions applied within the problem space.

2. 2.

   Element B (Item): This is the target or subject upon which the activity is performed, leading to a desired state change.

Under ideal conditions, where knowledge and resources are available, the interaction between Element A and Element B should not pose any challenge, and state change should be readily achievable. However, in practical scenarios, the interplay of the Contradiction, Constraint, and Criteria complicates this interaction, giving rise to a problem, thereby making the core issue explicit.

Contradiction arises when there is a direct conflict between the desired state change and the actual relationship between Element A and Element B.

Constraints are the bounding conditions within which the problem must be solved. These may include technical constraints, such as the maximum weight a material can support; economic constraints, such as budget limits; or regulatory constraints, such as safety and environmental regulations.

Criteria represent the benchmarks for evaluating the success of a solution. They are the qualitative and quantitative goals the design must achieve to succeed. These could include performance criteria like speed or efficiency, usability criteria such as user-friendliness, or environmental impact criteria such as carbon footprint.

The response generated by CAI engines depends upon the exact phrase used as input for a given query. Therefore, it is important to formulate the right style for the phrases to invoke more useful responses in the design context. Ideation is a common cognitive activity during the conceptual design phase, which generates propositions by which challenges could be overcome for the problem. The cognitive process of problem-solving involves the stages of searching, learning, synthesis, analysis, and inference (b25; b26; b27). During recursive ideation, the corresponding stages are referred to as exploration (searching), inspiration (learning), generation (synthesis), elaboration (analysis), and evaluation (inference). We map the different types of prompts available in the domain of prompt engineering (b28; b29) in CAI to be given as input that facilitates each of these ideation stages. A prompt is an assertive sentence used to solicit a response from CAI. Each type of prompt is characterized by a context and a query. A context is defined by the nature of the fields contained in it. The essential fields for each context and the corresponding structure of the prompt are presented in Table 4 with illustrative examples for each stage of ideation.

The key to harnessing the ideation potential of CAI lies in the structured formulation of input prompts and output responses. By carefully crafting prompts, designers can guide CAI in generating structured responses pertinent to the problem. In this way, LLMs are not bottlenecked by the designer’s limited knowledge or the stochastic nature of human cognitive recall. Providing a structure for inputs guides the CAI in understanding the context and constraints of the problem space, ensuring that the generated ideas are relevant and focused. Without such a structure, the CAI produces responses that, while potentially creative and diverse, lack specificity to the task at hand and overwhelm the user with an excess of detailed procedural content, as seen from the results of the pilot study (Table  2). Structured prompts help steer the AI towards the generation of ’what to do’ ideas rather than ’how to do it’ processes, thus aiding in the conceptual phase of solution development.

CAI systems have the propensity to deliver verbose content, leading to information overload (zhang-Yue-2023; Ye-Hongbin-2023; Huang-Lei-Yu-2023; Xu-Ziwei-2024). This impedes the designer’s ability to rapidly assimilate and act upon the information provided. Thus, parallel to establishing a standardized format for input prompts, as seen in the earlier section, a structured format is deemed necessary for the responses given by CAI. This would ensure that the output from CAI is uniform, concise, coherent, consistent and tailored to the designer’s specific needs.

A comparative analysis was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the traditional brainstorming methods and the unstructured and structured CAI-based ideation processes. For this analysis, a problem statement was taken that addressed people’s difficulty in cleaning footwear quickly and easily without causing damage to it. The study aimed to show the differences in the relevance of the ideas generated through these distinct ideation techniques. The ideas generated through these methods are shown in Figure 15.

Utilizing the traditional brainstorming technique, a group of novice designers engaged in a session to generate solutions for the stated problem. The ideas produced, while diverse, largely reflected solutions that were analogous to those used for cleaning other items, such as household or automotive cleaning tools. This outcome may be attributed to the ’Lack of Experience’ bottleneck, where participants reverted to familiar concepts rather than innovating new ones specifically tailored to footwear. In our view, ’Design Fixation’ also played a role, limiting the exploration beyond the initial ideas, which was evident from the repetitive use of brushes/bristles in the ideas generated.

In contrast, the unstructured CAI-based ideation process, driven by a conversational AI system, yielded a detailed array of ideas. The CAI, leveraging its access to extensive data repositories, produced solutions that were thorough in their explanation of the ’how to’ aspect of implementation. However, the wealth of information provided by the CAI system in this unstructured format led to a saturation of procedural details, overshadowing the ideation’s core ’what to do’ aspect. This discrepancy highlighted the need for a more focused ideation approach that could distil the essence of the solutions without overwhelming the designers with excessive implementation specifics.

A structured approach was introduced to address the challenges observed in the unstructured CAI-based ideation. This involved refining the CAI’s prompts to concentrate more on generating ideas that defined ’what’ the solution should be rather than ’how’ it should be implemented. The structured CAI-based ideation process demonstrated a significant improvement, as evidenced by the attached Figure 15. The CAI-generated ideas became more precise and centred around the conceptualization of potential solutions, offering crisp and clear solutions that were easy to grasp.

The results from the structured CAI-based ideation show the importance of guiding the CAI to focus on generating novel ideas through a structured format. The ’Designer as a Curator’ model becomes particularly relevant here, where the designer’s role evolves to evaluate and refine the ideas proposed by the CAI, harnessing the computational system’s capabilities while applying human intuition and expertise. The results reveal that while traditional brainstorming can yield a breadth of ideas, these may be limited by cognitive bottlenecks such as experience and fixation. Unstructured CAI-based ideation can overcome these bottlenecks by providing a vast array of detailed solutions. Structured CAI-based ideation is demonstrated as a more effective approach, enabling the generation of targeted, novel ideas that are more likely to result in practical and innovative solutions for the specific challenge.